user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
It would be nice if everyone could stay on topic and not drag the USA or other country's into this. The topic is the premise of this book and England
Voted : True. England is responsible for much of the current problems
England, England, England. Rancid home of my birth that I gladly left and never looked back. Not only has England be responsible for some heinous crimes in the past it is also partly responsible for some pretty vile acts today. An evil, ugly little country that breeds evil, ugly little people.
^ and ejects some out into the world ;) Yep, England's been outed, she can be a c*nt alright.
Can we slag our teeth off next?
Voted : True. England is responsible for much of the current problems
There is truth to it. However, I do not think England should be a scapegoat. It is unfair to blame everything on anyone. Oh, but I would list the industrial revolution as an achivement, not a shame.
My favourite is that England "invented" the Black Plague !! That's particularly rich!
^ I know. Perchance, where is the truth in it Socrates? Its a pathetic, ridiculous piece of historical revisionism.
Voted : Part truth, part exageration
The same would be true of most any nation on Earth to some extent, sadly.
It's actually very true. Historical facts are that much of European colonialism is responsible for almost all of the current "hotspots" in the world. See it from an outsiders perspective: we hear and read all the time, including on this site, how evil the United States is and how this is our fault and that is our fault. It seems our friends in Europe in particular like to say this. But let's look at the truth...Africa, India/Pakistan, the Middle East...all of the problems there are not because of the United States...they are a factually, historically accurate direct reslult of the days of European empire. Chompsky, you say it's revisionism. It's not. It's historical fact. Why when our friends in Europe level an accusation against the United States it's "fact," but when any true accusations are leveled at a Eruopean nation, it's "revisionism." Sorry, we're not buying it any more. While England is hardly the "evil empire," it is a fact that England's global empire of years ago has created long-lingering issues that have kept the world's hot spots...hot. England colonised nation after nation. Fact. That's where the expression "The sun never sets on the British Empire" comes from. England re-drew borders, displaced indigenous peoples, changed laws, changed constitutions, etc., etc. These effects were in place right up until World War II, so of course there are still problems that are a direct result of that British colonialism. Americans are done being the kicking post of the world. We didn't create many of these problems and we're no longer prepared to let people lay the blame at our feet. The time for accurate, historicla fact has arrived and that's just the way it is. It may be a bitter pill for you to swallow, but swallow it you must.
I'll ask this question: Which nation created the Vietnam war? I'll give you a hint: Vietnam was knows as French Inochina up until the 1950's. We were asked to "help" by which country?
Here's another question: How did WWI start? Hint: 3 major European powers, ruled by Monarch's who were all related, dittered around and tried to divide up the Balkans. It was actually a family squabble that caused WWI. Kind of sad. We can talk about WWII later.
^Britain didn't start WW I or WW II. Is it a fact Britain somehow created the Black Plague? I wouldn't argue with the French in Vietnam. But whats that got to do with Britain exactly? Britain left her colonies freely, with democratic govt, she didn't have to be bloodily thrown out like the French. As for India, the root cause of the current tensions between it and Pakistan is hatred between Hindus and Muslems. Britain didn't create that. The only way Britain could have left India was through Partition, there was no other way. Concentration camps were used by the British in South Africa, but at pretty much the same time the Spanish in Cuba and the Americans in the Phillipines were using them aswell, so why Britain is singled out on that is beyond me. Britain was an imperialst nation, but so was every other major european nation, so was, as a matter of fact, the United states, unless you dont believe that seizing half a continent through force and displacing its indigenous people (when they weren't merely buthchered) doesn't count as imperialism. As for leaving without stable govts, Britain left every colony in Africa with a democratic govt and legal system. At what point after Britain left do those countries cease to be our responsibility? You know why people have a go at the US, and indeed the UK for whats happening in the Middle East? Because we are there right now fucking everything up. We are meant to be civilized liberal western Democracies, yet half a million p[eople have died because of Bush and Blair. We preach democracy and liberty, yet lock people up for years without trial in Cuba. Thats why they hate us now, not because of something that happened 100 years ago. Every nation has things in its past it cant be proud of, every nation. To single England out is pathetic, and many of the so called crimes are inaccurate. Also, why does it describe the Brtish Empire, before then singling out England? Why do the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh get off with it?
'Americans are done being the kicking post of the world. We didn't create many of these problems and we're no longer prepared to let people lay the blame at our feet. The time for accurate, historicla fact has arrived and that's just the way it is. It may be a bitter pill for you to swallow, but swallow it you must.' Yeah right, go and watch U571, braveheart, the Patriot, Michael Collins, etc... Poor old America.
chomsky- "where is the truth in it Socrates?" - Genocide and Global Misrule.
Gee Chomsky, why are you getting all worked up? For your information, I get my history from books and facts and authorities on the subject, not from movies. How about you? You're successfully proving the point though: if it's about America and it's bad, it must be true. If we say it's not, "you" reply with the usual rhetoric as in your reply of "you get your facts from Hollywood movies." But! If it's negative about Europe, and specifically in this case, England, then it's all lies, revisionism, etc., etc. Funny, you're reacting the every same way Americans do in similar situations. But....I guess it's okay if you're doing it....right??
Every nation has things in its past it cant be proud of, every nation. To single England out is pathetic, and many of the so called crimes are inaccurate. Also, why does it describe the Brtish Empire, before then singling out England? Why do the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh get off with it? by Chomsky on Thu Apr 26, 07 5:22am We'll hold you to that Everyone hears that ALL the time when it involves Europe. Despite the overwhelming facts and evidence that European colonialsim created at least 90% of all the hot spots in the world, when challenged on it, our friends in Europe reply "Oh, but that was in the past." And?? The past catches up to you, doesn't it. Sorry, but it's time that the blame be layed where it fits. Not to be vindictive or anything, but to keep history straight. As for WWI and WWII, study history again. It may not have been England who started them...and I never said they did...but your inter-mingled Royal families did and England did play a role...by NOT playing a role. Figure that one out. Next time, please don't insult my intelligence or make assumptions that we get our history from Hollywood movies. Maybe you'd like to convince yourself of that...but I can assure you, that's one lame cop-out we're also challenging from now on.
chomsky - "But whats that got to do with Britain exactly? Britain left her colonies freely, with democratic govt, she didn't have to be bloodily thrown out like the French." - Well, yeah France was another empire that caused a lot of troubles that still remain in the world today. Stating that Britain was not as bad as France doesn't get rid of the fact that Britain's actions also created a lot of problems that remain today. And Britain left behind democracies? Oh, so it is okay to spread democracy at the barrel of a gun? I guess you must support the Iraq War then? But while we are discussing how France left Vietnam, let's say in that region and observe the condition Burma was left in after the British left... "Concentration camps were used by the British in South Africa, but at pretty much the same time the Spanish in Cuba..." etc - Yes, I have already made an official statement that I am against scapegoating any one nation. I am claiming that Britain has created a lot of problems, not that they are soley responsible for all of them. "As for leaving without stable govts, Britain left every colony in Africa with a democratic govt and legal system. At what point after Britain left do those countries cease to be our responsibility?" - Are you seriously going to tell me that Britain left every single former colony with stable governments? The major problem for me is that Britain and France and the rest of the colonisers left African countries with national borders that don't make demographic sense. The borders were merely created out of what was convenient for the colonisers at the time- and so what there is in Africa are a lot of superficial nations, with ethnic and cultural identites spread across differing borders. This is what probably contributes to the fact that these nation-states in Africa are so unstable, and why there is so much ethnic conflict. The borders were created out of convenience and not about where actual cultural and ethnic identities are. "You know why people have a go at the US, and indeed the UK for whats happening in the Middle East? Because we are there right now fucking everything up. We are meant to be civilized liberal western Democracies, yet half a million p[eople have died because of Bush and Blair. We preach democracy and liberty, yet lock people up for years without trial in Cuba. Thats why they hate us now, not because of something that happened 100 years ago." - This is an inconsistency. Just above you were praising the British for spreading democracy through their colonisation, and now you are denouncing modern Britain and US for spreading democracy through military force in Iraq? "As for India, the root cause of the current tensions between it and Pakistan is hatred between Hindus and Muslems. Britain didn't create that. The only way Britain could have left India was through Partition, there was no other way." - India had to be divided in the first place, because the British had previously superficially united them into one colony. "Also, why does it describe the Brtish Empire, before then singling out England? Why do the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh get off with it?" - For the most part Ireland was subordinate as well. However, the Welsh and the Scotts should be included when analysing the 'British' colonial empire.
"so was, as a matter of fact, the United states, unless you dont believe that seizing half a continent through force and displacing its indigenous people (when they weren't merely buthchered) doesn't count as imperialism." ^As opposed to the first half (East coast) that the English wiped out? Or the Southern tier that the Spanish wiped out? Just curious
^ don't forget 'New France' and its oppression of the Natives.
What I perceive to be a problem in Europe is that its sophisticated approach to history and politics is selective, one-sided, simplistic, nationalistic. It is not true sophistication.
"Beginning in the 18th century, Britain began making our lives worse through the introduction of machines in the workplace." Thats the only extract I need to show you to prove that these guys are, quite simply, thick twats. Or possibly communists. I'd like to hear any of them complaining about the British invention of mechanisation when their sick mother needs that life support machine to keep breathing. Or when they have to go out and till fields for 14 hours a day just to survive without a tractor. Knowledgeless twats.
Nothing wrong with being a Communist, Alf.
widehead- yes there is something wrong with being the type of communist against machinery and technology- it is the kind of communist anti-modernity like the old Cambodian system which caused a lot of misery and oppression.
Patch-’Everyone hears that ALL the time when it involves Europe. Despite the overwhelming facts and evidence that European colonialsim created at least 90% of all the hot spots in the world, when challenged on it, our friends in Europe reply "Oh, but that was in the past." And?? The past catches up to you, doesn't it.’ One thing which gets me is the constant lumping of European countries together. Nothing Britain did in Africa compares with the Belgian Congo, for example. That doesn’t make the creation of Empire ok, but there isn’t moral equivalency in my opinion. ‘It may not have been England who started them...and I never said they did...but your inter-mingled Royal families did and England did play a role...by NOT playing a role. Figure that one out.’ Could say the same about American isolationism pre WW II! Socrates-’Well, yeah France was another empire that caused a lot of troubles that still remain in the world today. Stating that Britain was not as bad as France doesn't get rid of the fact that Britain's actions also created a lot of problems that remain today. And Britain left behind democracies? Oh, so it is okay to spread democracy at the barrel of a gun? I guess you must support the Iraq War then? But while we are discussing how France left Vietnam, let's say in that region and observe the condition Burma was left in after the British left...’ That’s not my point at all. Britain went to those places to take over and exploit them. That’s wrong, The creation of an empire in that manner is wrong, I wouldn’t argue. Britain seized places like India to exploit it. Much of Africa was taken to stop the other European powers taking it. That’s just as wrong. My point is that before they granted these places independence they left democracy and the rule of law. If after this various tribes started massacring each other, I don’t see how all the blame scan be laid at the feet at colonialism. The borders of most African countries don’t make sense and have aggravated matters, but if I found myself on the wrong side of the border it wouldn’t make me want to go and massacre my neighbours. In my opinion exploitation in the last 50 years has contributed far more to the bloodshed in Africa, South America and Asia today than the British Empire has. And I don’t just mean exploitation by the US, but the West in general and the Soviets, etc…We install dictators to do our bidding, then when they get too big for their boots all of a sudden they are bad men who are killing their own people, and we install a different faction. We play people off against each other and then wonder why they dislike us so much. ’- Are you seriously going to tell me that Britain left every single former colony with stable governments? The major problem for me is that Britain and France and the rest of the colonisers left African countries with national borders that don't make demographic sense. The borders were merely created out of what was convenient for the colonisers at the time- and so what there is in Africa are a lot of superficial nations, with ethnic and cultural identites spread across differing borders. This is what probably contributes to the fact that these nation-states in Africa are so unstable, and why there is so much ethnic conflict. The borders were created out of convenience and not about where actual cultural and ethnic identities are. ‘ " -This is an inconsistency. Just above you were praising the British for spreading democracy through their colonisation, and now you are denouncing modern Britain and US for spreading democracy through military force in Iraq?’ As above. I haven’t said that Britain’s intention was to spread democracy, it wasn’t, though one can perhaps, ideologically at least, and however misguided, point to this idea of spreading law, order and civilization. As for Iraq, I am not a non-interventionist. It is not so much the fact we invaded Iraq as for why and how we did. I don’t believe that we invaded to install democracy. If you believed Blair we went in to get the WMD’s, its only since we aint found any that all the stress has been put on spreading democracy. For example, I agreed with going into Kosovo, Afghanistan and Sierra Leon. I do believe we have a responsibility to former colonies in Africa. But it is the hypocrisy I cant stand. Some dictators are good, like in Uzbekistan, because they are our allies, but others are bad and should be toppled. That’s my problem with our middle East policy. ’- India had to be divided in the first place, because the British had previously superficially united them into one colony.’ I disagree. Religious tension had been in India for hundreds/thousands of years. Before Britain arrived India was a collection of states constantly at war with each other. The longest period of peace India probably had was under the Raj. That’s not to say that Britain should have been in India, but to pretend, as many Indian and anti-British academics do, that India was some kind of paradise before the British arrived is simply not true. And there again is a good example. Britain recognised after the war that keeping India was untenable. She left India the biggest democracy in the world with excellent civil administration. As I said, I don’t believe exploitative imperialism is right, but India could have been a lot worse off when Britain left. ’- For the most part Ireland was subordinate as well. However, the Welsh and the Scotts should be included when analysing the 'British' colonial empire.’ The Catholics were subordinate, yes, and that’s something I feel quite strongly about because that’s my background. But there again, ‘England’ is blamed when the actual normal English people had little to do with it. Henry II and his lieutenant, the Earl of Pembroke, were the first ‘Englishmen’ to invade Ireland, but both were Frenchmen who ruled over an England that was itself oppressed by foreigners. The Tudor monarchs were Welsh and the Stuarts were Scottish, so perhaps misdeeds under them should be a little more evenly distributed! And Cromwell and his army was English but many Englishmen fought against him, in Ireland too. ‘Patch-‘As opposed to the first half (East coast) that the English wiped out? Or the Southern tier that the Spanish wiped out? Just curious’ Well they’re your ancestors, not mine! The thing is Americans talk about European imperialism, yet most of you lot are descended from European immigrants who arrived in the US in the last 100-150 years. So if you are going to start having a go at the actions of Europeans over the last 300 years many of you are actually lambasting your own ancestors, if you see what I mean! Basically, my view is he who without sin cast the first stone. I understand why yanks might get annoyed with constant criticism, but for this idiot to write a book calling Britain evil, and then support the claim by saying things like the Industrial revolution was bad, or that England created the plague is pretty pathetic. The Developed world right now is having a negative impact on the Third World. That is happening right now because of our actions today. I don’t care what Britain did 150 years ago, I don’t care what America did 50 years ago or 30 years ago, I care about what Britain and America, and Europe, and Russia and China is doing now. That’s what this idiot should be writing a book about.
chomsky- "I disagree. Religious tension had been in India for hundreds/thousands of years. Before Britain arrived India was a collection of states constantly at war with each other." - Yes, they were separate states at war with each other. It was Britain that created the idea of a united India in the first place: it invented the idea of them being united as one. Pakistan wouldn't have needed a separatist movement if Britain had of categorised them as a separate colony to begin with. The British empire invented the idea of a lot modern countries, creating a lot of similar problems with clashing with the reality of identity politics.
but if they had remained dispret the fighting and tension would have continued anyway, for a longer period. It just would have been wars with different names between countries with different names. I should also say this; the British didn't want to partitian India, they tried to avoid it at all costs, it was religous zealots, mostly amongst the muslems and sikhs, who forced the issue.
^And surely a United India would have been better.
Chomsky- Britain invented the idea of 'India' in the first place. If they hadn't of done that, there wouldn't have been arguments over 'united' or 'divided' 'India'.
^ I disagree with that. There has always been a sense of the subcontinent differing from the rest of Asia, both culturally and geographically, etc...Since Ancient times, in fact
chomsky- I can agree that there has been a distinct civilisation of the subcontinent for a very long time. However, despite having a distinct cultural civilizational identity, the idea of it being one country was an invention of colonisation. Similarly in the West for example: there has always been a sense of the a European continental identity differing from Asia and Africa both culturally and geographically, however, it has always had a legacy of being divided. The subcontinent was similar: a general civilizational common identity, however before colonisation was nonetheless politically divided and there was little evident thought of uniting the cultural region into one entity until the British arrived and colonised it as such.
|
|