The British Empire Shame Thread

[Picaro]

Yes! A 'Flatten Wales' movement sounds like just the thing Tommy needs to occupy his lack of enough to do all day but whine about Brits, Yanks and assorted other never-do-wells. A fitting crusade that fits his abilities and annoys his neighbors.

 

[Drummond]

Yes! A 'Flatten Wales' movement sounds like just the thing Tommy needs to occupy his lack of enough to do all day but whine about Brits, Yanks and assorted other never-do-wells. A fitting crusade that fits his abilities and annoys his neighbors.

Actually, his neighbours would probably fall over themselves to thank him.

I think I'll put it as second on my all-time wish list. Which begins with ...

PERSONAL LIFETIME WISH-LIST ...

1. See the world rid of the blight of Socialism, once and for all ... see it reviled every bit as much as Hitler's variant, 'National Socialism', currently is.

2. Forget the Flat Earth Society. I propose a 'Flatten Wales' Society .. dedicated to relieving the population of Wales of the burden of perpetual backbreaking hill-climbing, or, death-defying mandatory ski-ing activities in winter (... and that's just the old age pensioners ...) Not to mention making TV and radio signals far more reliable ...

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

You're the one talking about subsidies, not me. I'm talking about jobs, the economy, things that actually matter.

Because of the oil industry Scotland ends up giving a lot of money to Westminster.

Westminster charges Scotland billions of pounds in service costs - Business for Scotland

Enough of the Scottish subsidy myth - Scotland pays its way in the Union

"
Enough of the Scottish subsidy myth - Scotland pays its way in the Union"

The problem in the UK, not just for Scotland, but also the North of England, is that it is very London heavy. The fast train line from the North to London was set up by Labour who saw the need for it, to try and change this. The Tories wanted none of it, and got rid of it with a campaign of how expensive it was. Yeah, who wants to pay money to move economic power away from their areas?

 

[Dr Grump]

[

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.

At the end of the day, European countries were always going to colonise the rest of the world. It was a lottery as to who was going to get what. Those that got Britain won the main prize. Native populations in the US, Canada, NZ and Australia are doing a lot better than those colonised by Spain, France, Belgian etc.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

[

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.

At the end of the day, European countries were always going to colonise the rest of the world. It was a lottery as to who was going to get what. Those that got Britain won the main prize. Native populations in the US, Canada, NZ and Australia are doing a lot better than those colonised by Spain, France, Belgian etc.

But all of them have been treated like shit.

 

[Dr Grump]

But all of them have been treated like shit.

To a degree. And most modern govts that were part of the British Empire are trying to rectify it. In our case (NZ) the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840 and is still valid today. Go figure

BTW, before you get all tearful about the poor 'indigenous' peoples, in the case of Maori in NZ, they were kicking the shit out of each other long before ****** arrived on the scene. They weren't the nobel savage skipping through the forest picking berries. Some of the worst cultures for genocide were pre-Colombian Central and South America. The Incas, Mayans and Aztecs sacrificed millions in the names of their gods.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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?

The issue is very simple. Scotland as a nation has never voted tory. Has consistently voted anti trident and pro Europe. Yet they are ruled by a parliament controlled by English MPs. Is that freedom ?

 

[yiostheoy]

At the end of the day, European countries were always going to colonise the rest of the world. It was a lottery as to who was going to get what. Those that got Britain won the main prize. Native populations in the US, Canada, NZ and Australia are doing a lot better than those colonised by Spain, France, Belgian etc.

Colonization was an unintended consequence of seafaring.

Seafaring by the Portuguese to Africa and India was to work around the Arabs who had conquered the North African trade routes and would not permit free travel without taking high piratic tolls.

So the Portuguese (Prince Henry the Navigator) worked their way around Africa and eventually Vasco De Gama made it to India.

Then all of a fluke Christoforo Colombo decided to sail West not Southeast to get there, knowing that the ancient Greeks had determined the Earth to be either a cylinder or a globe.

That gave rise to the discovery of a new hemisphere which was the fabled Atlantis of ancient Greek myth.

Atlantis was fabled to have rich cities, and so Colombo and Cortez searched for gold and silver.

The gold turned out to be in Meso American and the silver in South America. The natives wore it on their bodies. It spelled their doom. Had they never mined any gold they would have never been conquered.

From that point on, colonization was irresistible indeed.

South America was irresistible for silver.

Meso America was irresistible for gold.

And North America was irresistible for furs. Then for homesteading by the crowded Dutch and English. The fur trade remained the primary export of North America, and then also tobacco.

 

[Dr Grump]

The issue is very simple. Scotland as a nation has never voted tory. Has consistently voted anti trident and pro Europe. Yet they are ruled by a parliament controlled by English MPs. Is that freedom ?

But they voted to stay. Their call. Not Westminster's...

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

I vote for India. Great democratic nation. Very trustworthy.

And UBL was not hiding there right under the government's noses.

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

Those little beet farm countries are not wedged between 2 nuclear superpowers such as India and Pakistan.

They can grow their sugar beets until hell freezes over and it would make no difference because the Serbs being Russian Orthodox have already murdered all the Muslim Bosniaks and Croats.

Russia, France, and England are the nearest superpowers and far away.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The issue is very simple. Scotland as a nation has never voted tory. Has consistently voted anti trident and pro Europe. Yet they are ruled by a parliament controlled by English MPs. Is that freedom ?

But they voted to stay. Their call. Not Westminster's...

The landscape has changed since then. Every area of Scotland voted to remain. English votes will take them out of the EU. Membership was a big issue during the independence debate. Its worth them taking another look at it as the negotiations unwind.

 

[yiostheoy]

Is that a crime ??

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?

Right now they mostly and usually get it (legitimacy) from the U.N.

Occasionally the Russians will roll their tanks and mobile artillery in and that will give legitimacy too.

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

Your claims against the British are false.

I should mute you right now by putting you on the ignore list.

 

[Drummond]

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?

The issue is very simple. Scotland as a nation has never voted tory. Has consistently voted anti trident and pro Europe. Yet they are ruled by a parliament controlled by English MPs. Is that freedom ?

Who forced them to become a part of, then continue on as, part of the UK ?

You might remember that they had a Referendum ? How did that turn out ?

 

[frigidweirdo]

[

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.

At the end of the day, European countries were always going to colonise the rest of the world. It was a lottery as to who was going to get what. Those that got Britain won the main prize. Native populations in the US, Canada, NZ and Australia are doing a lot better than those colonised by Spain, France, Belgian etc.

Native populations aren't actually doing that well, are they? I mean in the US they ended up being fed with alcohol and forced onto plantations. In Australia they've had problems like in New Zealand. They basically can have a good life but feel like they've been taken over.

Many of those who didn't have the native populations replaced hit the shit pile.

I mean, according to the UN, GDP per capita, Somalia (part of which was British ruled) is at the bottom, the Burundi (German controlled), then Malawi, British controlled, a couple of French controlled countries, The Gambia, British Controlled.

It doesn't seem to matter who controlled who, the bottom of the pile is a lot of these countries that were occupied, being controlled by the British didn't make your country any better.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Your claims against the British are false.

I should mute you right now by putting you on the ignore list.

Wow, you say my claims are false, but not WHY. Then you claim you're going to put me on ignore because.... well because you don't like what I have to say. Then, if you're not willing to listen, you might as well put me on ignore.

 

[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.

I vote for India. Great democratic nation. Very trustworthy.

And UBL was not hiding there right under the government's noses.

How is India great? It has a massive problem with sleazy men, too many people live in absolute poverty and despair and it doesn't seem to be changing any time soon, while China is powering forwards without being restrained by things like democracy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

The issue is very simple. Scotland as a nation has never voted tory. Has consistently voted anti trident and pro Europe. Yet they are ruled by a parliament controlled by English MPs. Is that freedom ?

Who forced them to become a part of, then continue on as, part of the UK ?

You might remember that they had a Referendum ? How did that turn out ?

It was close though. If there wasn't this whole sectarian nonsense there, they'd have probably have voted to leave.

 

[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.

Those little beet farm countries are not wedged between 2 nuclear superpowers such as India and Pakistan.

They can grow their sugar beets until hell freezes over and it would make no difference because the Serbs being Russian Orthodox have already murdered all the Muslim Bosniaks and Croats.

Russia, France, and England are the nearest superpowers and far away.

"little beet farm countries", you're going to have to explain.