The British Empire Shame Thread

[Mindful]

Britain was probably the best coloniser of the lot...

Yeah, they were Great.

Great at genocide, Great at stealing, Great at killing....

Name some genocides.

It would help if you justified your radical interpretations as you went along.

But in this case I am happy with a footnote.

Go on ... .

Well, against the Australian peoples.

Report details crimes against Aborigines - World Socialist Web Site

"The genocidal practices perpetrated against Australian Aborigines were the outcome of policies adopted and implemented by all Australian governments from British settlement in 1788 until the present."

British Genocides - New British Empire

Here's a whole website.

NORTH AMERICA: Using Smallpox to Eradicate the Natives
NORTH AMERICA: Biological Warfare against Soldiers and Civilians
AUSTRALIA: Barbarism in Tasmania
KENYA: The Mau Mau Uprising
BENGAL, INDIA: Bengal Famine

And more.......

As for it would help to show stuff. Maybe, however my experience is you don't bother because half the people on here won't read past the first sentence. So until you find who you're dealing with, you keep it short and don't waste time proving things that will go unnoticed.

You're ranting about Mother Nature.

Mother Nature was not kind to native North Americans or Meso Americans or South Americans.

Germs killed most of them off.

The British did not kill any of them off.

The French enlisted the Indians for their world war against the British.

Thus the Indians became French pawns.

Blame France.

I'm not ranting and I'm not talking about mother nature. YOU ARE.

The British had policies that were Genocide. Please note that you don't even need to kill in order to commit genocide. However the British went into the Americas and by the time 1776 and all that had happened and the British were out of there (except Canada) they'd killed and destroyed quite a few Native American groups, but they also set in motion what the Americans would then do.

Some of the famines, like one in what is now Bangladesh and India, was a case of the British moving food out of the area and allowing people to starve to death.

Gosh. What a murderous blood thirsty lot.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Depends on how you want to define a crime. Kashmir certainly is.

Just because they are fighting over the land does not make it a crime.

Is it not a crime to send people to war for pathetic reasons?

I personally think it is. I think people who stir up trouble when they're in government are committing crimes. Problem is there's no one to stick them in front of a court.

Whatever India's claim to Kashmir is I am happy with it.

UBL was not hiding in Kashmir.

You're happy with it. Are the Kashmiri people happy with it? Where does a government get its legitimacy from in order to hold land and the people who live in it?

The UN is in charge of mediating international conflicts.

My personal view is that Kashmir is not big enough to be an independent state.

And since India is more responsible than Pakistan, give Kashmir to India.

UBL was not hiding in Kashmir or India.

Not big enough?

It's 3 million people.

That would put it 135th in the world, about the same as Armenia. That's out of 195 countries on my list.

Why is Kashmir too small? Personally I think the US, China, India etc are too big.

India is more responsible? You can't just give land and people to a country. That's a ridiculous and arrogant attitude. People should be free to rule themselves. Maybe we should give the US to Mexico. See how you like it.

 

[StLucieBengal]

Just because they are fighting over the land does not make it a crime.

Is it not a crime to send people to war for pathetic reasons?

I personally think it is. I think people who stir up trouble when they're in government are committing crimes. Problem is there's no one to stick them in front of a court.

Whatever India's claim to Kashmir is I am happy with it.

UBL was not hiding in Kashmir.

You're happy with it. Are the Kashmiri people happy with it? Where does a government get its legitimacy from in order to hold land and the people who live in it?

The UN is in charge of mediating international conflicts.

My personal view is that Kashmir is not big enough to be an independent state.

And since India is more responsible than Pakistan, give Kashmir to India.

UBL was not hiding in Kashmir or India.

Not big enough?

It's 3 million people.

That would put it 135th in the world, about the same as Armenia. That's out of 195 countries on my list.

Why is Kashmir too small? Personally I think the US, China, India etc are too big.

India is more responsible? You can't just give land and people to a country. That's a ridiculous and arrogant attitude. People should be free to rule themselves. Maybe we should give the US to Mexico. See how you like it.

So you had no problem with Crimean people voting to be Russian when the Ukraine was under a coup?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Britain was probably the best coloniser of the lot...

Yeah, they were Great.

Great at genocide, Great at stealing, Great at killing....

Yeah. The Brits did real bad. Look at all those terrible former colonies that are total basket cases these days. Canada. Australia. US. New Zealand. India. South Africa. Unlike the Spanish colonies. Or French. Or Belgian. Or Portuguese.

Canada, Australia, New Zealand took over the land, replaced the people. South Africa kept most of the people but then the Boers took over and well, that went well, didn't it?

The British also made Iraq. How'd that work out? Oh, they put a SAUDI in as king, they hated him, the Ba'ath Party took over, Saddam took over the Ba'ath Party in Iraq.
Afghanistan, went in twice, got kicked out twice.
India. Well, second largest population in the world, not doing very well.
Pakistan. Wellllllllll, I don't see many people thinking Pakistan's doing so well....

Oh, I could go on all day.

The others generally didn't take over and remove the native population, or at least push them as far away as to make them not a problem.

Oh, Britain invented concentration camps in Kenya..... wonderful.

 

[Dot Com]

Here is something a bit more recent. Thatcher allowed this paedo to keep his title. A real pillar of the establishment, both of them.

Margaret Thatcher warned of paedophile scandal, secret documents reveal

Thats outrageous and unacceptable and Quelle surprise!!! it was a Tory

 

[frigidweirdo]

Is it not a crime to send people to war for pathetic reasons?

I personally think it is. I think people who stir up trouble when they're in government are committing crimes. Problem is there's no one to stick them in front of a court.

Whatever India's claim to Kashmir is I am happy with it.

UBL was not hiding in Kashmir.

You're happy with it. Are the Kashmiri people happy with it? Where does a government get its legitimacy from in order to hold land and the people who live in it?

The UN is in charge of mediating international conflicts.

My personal view is that Kashmir is not big enough to be an independent state.

And since India is more responsible than Pakistan, give Kashmir to India.

UBL was not hiding in Kashmir or India.

Not big enough?

It's 3 million people.

That would put it 135th in the world, about the same as Armenia. That's out of 195 countries on my list.

Why is Kashmir too small? Personally I think the US, China, India etc are too big.

India is more responsible? You can't just give land and people to a country. That's a ridiculous and arrogant attitude. People should be free to rule themselves. Maybe we should give the US to Mexico. See how you like it.

So you had no problem with Crimean people voting to be Russian when the Ukraine was under a coup?

Well, the reality is, if the whole thing had been done properly, then no, I wouldn't have had an issue with that.

I was in Pristina during a protest march a year before they gained independence from Serbia, I supported that. I also supported the vote for Montenegro being free, for Chechnya being free, for the Scottish to vote freely in their referendum, for the Basques, Catalans etc having a vote in Spain, for the Corsicans to have a vote for theirs, for Tibet and Xinjiang to be able to be free in China, East Timor being free from Indonesia, etc etc etc.

 

[StLucieBengal]

The Britishî and French made Iraq with with Sykes-picot. It really was genius because it kept the Muslims fighting themselves. Now since Obama and Clinton has let almost every secular dictator be overthrown except when they didn't support Iran rebels .... Thanks valerie Jarrett...

The Muslims are now running amuck in the west like animals.

 

[StLucieBengal]

Whatever India's claim to Kashmir is I am happy with it.

UBL was not hiding in Kashmir.

You're happy with it. Are the Kashmiri people happy with it? Where does a government get its legitimacy from in order to hold land and the people who live in it?

The UN is in charge of mediating international conflicts.

My personal view is that Kashmir is not big enough to be an independent state.

And since India is more responsible than Pakistan, give Kashmir to India.

UBL was not hiding in Kashmir or India.

Not big enough?

It's 3 million people.

That would put it 135th in the world, about the same as Armenia. That's out of 195 countries on my list.

Why is Kashmir too small? Personally I think the US, China, India etc are too big.

India is more responsible? You can't just give land and people to a country. That's a ridiculous and arrogant attitude. People should be free to rule themselves. Maybe we should give the US to Mexico. See how you like it.

So you had no problem with Crimean people voting to be Russian when the Ukraine was under a coup?

Well, the reality is, if the whole thing had been done properly, then no, I wouldn't have had an issue with that.

I was in Pristina during a protest march a year before they gained independence from Serbia, I supported that. I also supported the vote for Montenegro being free, for Chechnya being free, for the Scottish to vote freely in their referendum, for the Basques, Catalans etc having a vote in Spain, for the Corsicans to have a vote for theirs, for Tibet and Xinjiang to be able to be free in China, East Timor being free from Indonesia, etc etc etc.

Some of those places like Scotland for example just can't make it economically without help.

Unless they go to a society of zero social safety nets and complete freedom. It would be fun to see if this could work.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Britain was probably the best coloniser of the lot...

Yeah, they were Great.

Great at genocide, Great at stealing, Great at killing....

They came in and people assimilated to them. The exact opposite happened with the Spanish and Dutch. Who tried to integrate with the native cultures.

You can't pull people out of the back woods unless they change and advance themselves.

Just look at the differences of North America vs Central America?

As for genocide and theft..... There was no native Indian genocide in North America. And there was no theft, as far as I am concerned they took their lands From weaker tribes and lost their lands to a stronger group. What's funny is that we were able to take most of the land by paying them off and they left peacefully.

As for you.... Stop reading Howard Zinn it rots your brain.

Assimilated? Really?

So it's okay for the strong to take from the weak.

It was okay for Hitler to take from the Jews as he was strong and they were relatively weak? No genocide there then. No Genocide in Russia against the Cossacks, the Ukranians, the Russias were the strongest there.
The trail of tears wasn't genocide because the natives were weak and just deserved to die?

You need to read up on what genocide is.

Convention on Genocide

This is what Genocide is:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• (a) Killing members of the group;
• (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Basically Genocide is an attempt at destroying a group of people, either physically or on any other way. If you destroy a culture without killing people, it's genocide. What's left of native cultures in the US? Nothing. The destruction of the buffalo was genocide, because it led to the destruction of native ways of living.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Britishî and French made Iraq with with Sykes-picot. It really was genius because it kept the Muslims fighting themselves. Now since Obama and Clinton has let almost every secular dictator be overthrown except when they didn't support Iran rebels .... Thanks valerie Jarrett...

The Muslims are now running amuck in the west like animals.

Oh, genius, the Muslims fighting themselves, oh, except when Saddam was in, and they didn't like that, so invaded, then the Muslims decided to fight the others too, and then the westerners get pissed when the Muslims start attacking them, then the westerners BLAME THE FUCKING MUSLIMS for the problem the westerners caused in the first place.

FUCKING GENIUS>

 

[frigidweirdo]

You're happy with it. Are the Kashmiri people happy with it? Where does a government get its legitimacy from in order to hold land and the people who live in it?

The UN is in charge of mediating international conflicts.

My personal view is that Kashmir is not big enough to be an independent state.

And since India is more responsible than Pakistan, give Kashmir to India.

UBL was not hiding in Kashmir or India.

Not big enough?

It's 3 million people.

That would put it 135th in the world, about the same as Armenia. That's out of 195 countries on my list.

Why is Kashmir too small? Personally I think the US, China, India etc are too big.

India is more responsible? You can't just give land and people to a country. That's a ridiculous and arrogant attitude. People should be free to rule themselves. Maybe we should give the US to Mexico. See how you like it.

So you had no problem with Crimean people voting to be Russian when the Ukraine was under a coup?

Well, the reality is, if the whole thing had been done properly, then no, I wouldn't have had an issue with that.

I was in Pristina during a protest march a year before they gained independence from Serbia, I supported that. I also supported the vote for Montenegro being free, for Chechnya being free, for the Scottish to vote freely in their referendum, for the Basques, Catalans etc having a vote in Spain, for the Corsicans to have a vote for theirs, for Tibet and Xinjiang to be able to be free in China, East Timor being free from Indonesia, etc etc etc.

Some of those places like Scotland for example just can't make it economically without help.

Unless they go to a society of zero social safety nets and complete freedom. It would be fun to see if this could work.

Can't they? Can you prove that? Scotland is doing fine without needing so much help. Wales on the hand is a different matter, but Scotland, nah, it could easily survive on its own.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The UN is in charge of mediating international conflicts.

My personal view is that Kashmir is not big enough to be an independent state.

And since India is more responsible than Pakistan, give Kashmir to India.

UBL was not hiding in Kashmir or India.

Not big enough?

It's 3 million people.

That would put it 135th in the world, about the same as Armenia. That's out of 195 countries on my list.

Why is Kashmir too small? Personally I think the US, China, India etc are too big.

India is more responsible? You can't just give land and people to a country. That's a ridiculous and arrogant attitude. People should be free to rule themselves. Maybe we should give the US to Mexico. See how you like it.

So you had no problem with Crimean people voting to be Russian when the Ukraine was under a coup?

Well, the reality is, if the whole thing had been done properly, then no, I wouldn't have had an issue with that.

I was in Pristina during a protest march a year before they gained independence from Serbia, I supported that. I also supported the vote for Montenegro being free, for Chechnya being free, for the Scottish to vote freely in their referendum, for the Basques, Catalans etc having a vote in Spain, for the Corsicans to have a vote for theirs, for Tibet and Xinjiang to be able to be free in China, East Timor being free from Indonesia, etc etc etc.

Some of those places like Scotland for example just can't make it economically without help.

Unless they go to a society of zero social safety nets and complete freedom. It would be fun to see if this could work.

Can't they? Can you prove that? Scotland is doing fine without needing so much help. Wales on the hand is a different matter, but Scotland, nah, it could easily survive on its own.

Wales would do all right if we could control our own resources.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not big enough?

It's 3 million people.

That would put it 135th in the world, about the same as Armenia. That's out of 195 countries on my list.

Why is Kashmir too small? Personally I think the US, China, India etc are too big.

India is more responsible? You can't just give land and people to a country. That's a ridiculous and arrogant attitude. People should be free to rule themselves. Maybe we should give the US to Mexico. See how you like it.

So you had no problem with Crimean people voting to be Russian when the Ukraine was under a coup?

Well, the reality is, if the whole thing had been done properly, then no, I wouldn't have had an issue with that.

I was in Pristina during a protest march a year before they gained independence from Serbia, I supported that. I also supported the vote for Montenegro being free, for Chechnya being free, for the Scottish to vote freely in their referendum, for the Basques, Catalans etc having a vote in Spain, for the Corsicans to have a vote for theirs, for Tibet and Xinjiang to be able to be free in China, East Timor being free from Indonesia, etc etc etc.

Some of those places like Scotland for example just can't make it economically without help.

Unless they go to a society of zero social safety nets and complete freedom. It would be fun to see if this could work.

Can't they? Can you prove that? Scotland is doing fine without needing so much help. Wales on the hand is a different matter, but Scotland, nah, it could easily survive on its own.

Wales would do all right if we could control our own resources.

To be honest, I know Wales, I knew someone who's mother was in charge of hospitals, from Labour, and a former trade union woman, and she oversaw a period when the rest of the country was getting a better NHS but the Welsh NHS was going downhill.

I don't have much faith in their politicians at all.

 

[StLucieBengal]

The UN is in charge of mediating international conflicts.

My personal view is that Kashmir is not big enough to be an independent state.

And since India is more responsible than Pakistan, give Kashmir to India.

UBL was not hiding in Kashmir or India.

Not big enough?

It's 3 million people.

That would put it 135th in the world, about the same as Armenia. That's out of 195 countries on my list.

Why is Kashmir too small? Personally I think the US, China, India etc are too big.

India is more responsible? You can't just give land and people to a country. That's a ridiculous and arrogant attitude. People should be free to rule themselves. Maybe we should give the US to Mexico. See how you like it.

So you had no problem with Crimean people voting to be Russian when the Ukraine was under a coup?

Well, the reality is, if the whole thing had been done properly, then no, I wouldn't have had an issue with that.

I was in Pristina during a protest march a year before they gained independence from Serbia, I supported that. I also supported the vote for Montenegro being free, for Chechnya being free, for the Scottish to vote freely in their referendum, for the Basques, Catalans etc having a vote in Spain, for the Corsicans to have a vote for theirs, for Tibet and Xinjiang to be able to be free in China, East Timor being free from Indonesia, etc etc etc.

Some of those places like Scotland for example just can't make it economically without help.

Unless they go to a society of zero social safety nets and complete freedom. It would be fun to see if this could work.

Can't they? Can you prove that? Scotland is doing fine without needing so much help. Wales on the hand is a different matter, but Scotland, nah, it could easily survive on its own.

Not with oil prices where they are.... Their ref failed when prices were ballooned up.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not big enough?

It's 3 million people.

That would put it 135th in the world, about the same as Armenia. That's out of 195 countries on my list.

Why is Kashmir too small? Personally I think the US, China, India etc are too big.

India is more responsible? You can't just give land and people to a country. That's a ridiculous and arrogant attitude. People should be free to rule themselves. Maybe we should give the US to Mexico. See how you like it.

So you had no problem with Crimean people voting to be Russian when the Ukraine was under a coup?

Well, the reality is, if the whole thing had been done properly, then no, I wouldn't have had an issue with that.

I was in Pristina during a protest march a year before they gained independence from Serbia, I supported that. I also supported the vote for Montenegro being free, for Chechnya being free, for the Scottish to vote freely in their referendum, for the Basques, Catalans etc having a vote in Spain, for the Corsicans to have a vote for theirs, for Tibet and Xinjiang to be able to be free in China, East Timor being free from Indonesia, etc etc etc.

Some of those places like Scotland for example just can't make it economically without help.

Unless they go to a society of zero social safety nets and complete freedom. It would be fun to see if this could work.

Can't they? Can you prove that? Scotland is doing fine without needing so much help. Wales on the hand is a different matter, but Scotland, nah, it could easily survive on its own.

Not with oil prices where they are.... Their ref failed when prices were ballooned up.

I disagree. I think Scotland struggles with politics being pro-southern England in the UK. If there were a real border, then Edinburgh and Glasgow would then become more centers of trade than they currently are and Scotland would be stronger.

 

[StLucieBengal]

So you had no problem with Crimean people voting to be Russian when the Ukraine was under a coup?

Well, the reality is, if the whole thing had been done properly, then no, I wouldn't have had an issue with that.

I was in Pristina during a protest march a year before they gained independence from Serbia, I supported that. I also supported the vote for Montenegro being free, for Chechnya being free, for the Scottish to vote freely in their referendum, for the Basques, Catalans etc having a vote in Spain, for the Corsicans to have a vote for theirs, for Tibet and Xinjiang to be able to be free in China, East Timor being free from Indonesia, etc etc etc.

Some of those places like Scotland for example just can't make it economically without help.

Unless they go to a society of zero social safety nets and complete freedom. It would be fun to see if this could work.

Can't they? Can you prove that? Scotland is doing fine without needing so much help. Wales on the hand is a different matter, but Scotland, nah, it could easily survive on its own.

Not with oil prices where they are.... Their ref failed when prices were ballooned up.

I disagree. I think Scotland struggles with politics being pro-southern England in the UK. If there were a real border, then Edinburgh and Glasgow would then become more centers of trade than they currently are and Scotland would be stronger.

Pro southern?

What is pro southern about sending more subsidy to Scotland than to England, Wales, or NI?

 

[Picaro]

Some of those places like Scotland for example just can't make it economically without help.

Unless they go to a society of zero social safety nets and complete freedom. It would be fun to see if this could work.

We already have the Libertarian Paradise of Somalia as a current fun example, along with past examples like the Wiemar Republic in 1932, Iran in 1978, the former Soviet Union's assorted failed states, etc., etc. down a long long list. Scotland wouldn't be as bad as all that but nonetheless they would soon be looking to latch on to another 'partnership' within just a few weeks of imaginary' freedom from oppression n Stuff'. There is an historical reason why states trend to bigger political federations and coalitions and trade groupings rather than smaller ones; the latter are usually a product of failures of one sort or another, including weakening moral values and rampant corruption. The Danes wouldn't be anywhere near 'the happiest people in Europe' if it weren't for a political umbrella of modern states that keeps the 'rain' of unpleasant realities off their backs, for instance. I do admire their current govt.'s attempt at keeping the violent invaders at heel despite all the snivelings from assorted Danish versions of Tommy Tainteds.

 

[Mindful]

So you had no problem with Crimean people voting to be Russian when the Ukraine was under a coup?

Well, the reality is, if the whole thing had been done properly, then no, I wouldn't have had an issue with that.

I was in Pristina during a protest march a year before they gained independence from Serbia, I supported that. I also supported the vote for Montenegro being free, for Chechnya being free, for the Scottish to vote freely in their referendum, for the Basques, Catalans etc having a vote in Spain, for the Corsicans to have a vote for theirs, for Tibet and Xinjiang to be able to be free in China, East Timor being free from Indonesia, etc etc etc.

Some of those places like Scotland for example just can't make it economically without help.

Unless they go to a society of zero social safety nets and complete freedom. It would be fun to see if this could work.

Can't they? Can you prove that? Scotland is doing fine without needing so much help. Wales on the hand is a different matter, but Scotland, nah, it could easily survive on its own.

Wales would do all right if we could control our own resources.

To be honest, I know Wales, I knew someone who's mother was in charge of hospitals, from Labour, and a former trade union woman, and she oversaw a period when the rest of the country was getting a better NHS but the Welsh NHS was going downhill.

I don't have much faith in their politicians at all.

Have they got any?

Oh yes; that bloke who's challenging Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour leadership.

 

[Picaro]

Lol some loser actually posted that ridiculous 'smallpox blanket' hoax again. Some people never get the memos from their local Commissars, directing them to drop the old lies and take up the new ones like the good little drones and muppets they aspire to be.

 

[Drummond]

Not big enough?

It's 3 million people.

That would put it 135th in the world, about the same as Armenia. That's out of 195 countries on my list.

Why is Kashmir too small? Personally I think the US, China, India etc are too big.

India is more responsible? You can't just give land and people to a country. That's a ridiculous and arrogant attitude. People should be free to rule themselves. Maybe we should give the US to Mexico. See how you like it.

So you had no problem with Crimean people voting to be Russian when the Ukraine was under a coup?

Well, the reality is, if the whole thing had been done properly, then no, I wouldn't have had an issue with that.

I was in Pristina during a protest march a year before they gained independence from Serbia, I supported that. I also supported the vote for Montenegro being free, for Chechnya being free, for the Scottish to vote freely in their referendum, for the Basques, Catalans etc having a vote in Spain, for the Corsicans to have a vote for theirs, for Tibet and Xinjiang to be able to be free in China, East Timor being free from Indonesia, etc etc etc.

Some of those places like Scotland for example just can't make it economically without help.

Unless they go to a society of zero social safety nets and complete freedom. It would be fun to see if this could work.

Can't they? Can you prove that? Scotland is doing fine without needing so much help. Wales on the hand is a different matter, but Scotland, nah, it could easily survive on its own.

Wales would do all right if we could control our own resources.

There's only so much you can earn from a proliferation of male voice choirs, Tommy.

I've one solution for any jobless total in Wales. How about ... the jobless are roped into one almightily massive effort to demolish all the hills ??? I for one am sick to the back teeth of climbing them all, just to get from point A to B !!

In London, in the borough I came from, it had one sizeable hill. The local council saw to it that it was knocked down.

But as my life now stands .. just two streets away, is a road with such a steep incline that in winter - I kid you not !! - it'd be easy to slide right down it during snowfall. Literally, no need to walk .. just use a pair of skis ... and pretend that nobody would ever have to climb it !!!