The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/86/The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg/300px-The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg

In the work the author argues that many of the world's problems were caused by the British Empire and also criticises British culture. The book explanes thru the historical facts how the British Empire was evil, and responsible for the Irish famine, the atrocities committed by the Black and Tans during the Irish War of Independence, Racism, Invention of African slavery, Genocides around the world, the Scramble for Africa, the Iraq War, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Durand Line and the Revengs of the Afghan Royal Family and their Rare Earth Elements, global warming, world poverty, the Great Plague, Islamofascism, the 19th century First and Second Opium Wars with China, the First World War and the Vietnam War. Other events the book places blame on the British Empire for include the Second World War, the fathering of the United States and the drug trade. The book argues that all of these incidents had a negative impact on the world.
Other arguments made in the book involve the popularity of homosexuality among the British nobility that the King James Bible was a deliberate act of heresy, and that the Piltdown Man hoax was a deliberate attempt by British academia to prove that they were a superior race.
The book also gives insight in the Victorian educational system called "Victorian Fascism", that like Hitler, prepared the whole nation, "Superior British Race", to conquer the world.

Yeah, like any other country would have done a better job.

you could also argue that there were 101 ways it improved the world, but that's unfashionable at the moment. continue to dwell in misery, lefties.

The british empire stood for the emotional states of enlightenment, completion, serenity, reverence, duty, wisdom, reason and understanding.

lefties dont tend to share these emotions (and remember, emotional states are VERY addictive).

if we look at a group of lefties (say the Anti-FA) we see the emotions lefties feel comfort with...despising, shame, despair, anger, tragedy, disdain, anxiety and hatred.

So a leftie would feel much more at home talking about the palestinians then the british.  and , surprise, surprise...thread after thread on the palestinians is started by lefties trying to pump their emotions full of all those "feelings they like to feel"

capitosinora wrote on May 3^rd, 2017 at 8:21pm:

The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/86/The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg/300px-The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg In the work the author argues that many of the world's problems were caused by the British Empire and also criticises British culture. The book explanes thru the historical facts how the British Empire was evil, and responsible for the Irish famine, the atrocities committed by the Black and Tans during the Irish War of Independence, Racism, Invention of African slavery, Genocides around the world, the Scramble for Africa, the Iraq War, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Durand Line and the Revengs of the Afghan Royal Family and their Rare Earth Elements, global warming, world poverty, the Great Plague, Islamofascism, the 19th century First and Second Opium Wars with China, the First World War and the Vietnam War. Other events the book places blame on the British Empire for include the Second World War, the fathering of the United States and the drug trade. The book argues that all of these incidents had a negative impact on the world. Other arguments made in the book involve the popularity of homosexuality among the British nobility that the King James Bible was a deliberate act of heresy, and that the Piltdown Man hoax was a deliberate attempt by British academia to prove that they were a superior race. The book also gives insight in the Victorian educational system called "Victorian Fascism", that like Hitler, prepared the whole nation, "Superior British Race", to conquer the world.

You must have been brought up in the ghetto eh....ya sound like a culturally challenged fkwit.....

aquascoot wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 6:51am:

The british empire stood for the emotional states of enlightenment, completion, serenity, reverence, duty, wisdom, reason and understanding. lefties dont tend to share these emotions (and remember, emotional states are VERY addictive). if we look at a group of lefties (say the Anti-FA) we see the emotions lefties feel comfort with...despising, shame, despair, anger, tragedy, disdain, anxiety and hatred. So a leftie would feel much more at home talking about the palestinians then the british.  and , surprise, surprise...thread after thread on the palestinians is started by lefties trying to pump their emotions full of all those "feelings they like to feel"

That is why they grew opium in India to sell to the Chinese, right horseboy?

capitosinora wrote on May 3^rd, 2017 at 8:21pm:

The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/86/The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg/300px-The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg In the work the author argues that many of the world's problems were caused by the British Empire and also criticises British culture. The book explanes thru the historical facts how the British Empire was evil, and responsible for the Irish famine, the atrocities committed by the Black and Tans during the Irish War of Independence, Racism, Invention of African slavery, Genocides around the world, the Scramble for Africa, the Iraq War, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Durand Line and the Revengs of the Afghan Royal Family and their Rare Earth Elements, global warming, world poverty, the Great Plague, Islamofascism, the 19th century First and Second Opium Wars with China, the First World War and the Vietnam War. Other events the book places blame on the British Empire for include the Second World War, the fathering of the United States and the drug trade. The book argues that all of these incidents had a negative impact on the world. Other arguments made in the book involve the popularity of homosexuality among the British nobility that the King James Bible was a deliberate act of heresy, and that the Piltdown Man hoax was a deliberate attempt by British academia to prove that they were a superior race. The book also gives insight in the Victorian educational system called "Victorian Fascism", that like Hitler, prepared the whole nation, "Superior British Race", to conquer the world.

Yeah what about it? 

Are you going to post a review of the book?

oh I am so glad we have found someone to BLAME ..

can we blame them for the price of spuds as well... gawd they are getting to a ridiculous price   I tell you all our Problems go back to the British.. down with the British...


will this be called pomphobia .. do you think??.. ::) ::) ::)

It is a contradiction that the British were ultimately detrimental to the colonies. Have any returned to the authoritarian regimes that preceded the British? In most cases they have introduced parliamentary systems of government which originated in Britain around 1700, although there were some earlier attempts elsewhere. Even presidential republics owe a great deal of their bicameral government to the British model.

That's not to say the British are squeaky-clean, but many progressive social changes originated in Britain. The suppression of the African slave trade was a British initiative, while the Arabs have carried the trade on well into the 20th century where the Africans could be smuggled through remote territories.

Fuzzball wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 7:56am:

capitosinora wrote on May 3rd, 2017 at 8:21pm: The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/86/The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg/300px-The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg In the work the author argues that many of the world's problems were caused by the British Empire and also criticises British culture. The book explanes thru the historical facts how the British Empire was evil, and responsible for the Irish famine, the atrocities committed by the Black and Tans during the Irish War of Independence, Racism, Invention of African slavery, Genocides around the world, the Scramble for Africa, the Iraq War, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Durand Line and the Revengs of the Afghan Royal Family and their Rare Earth Elements, global warming, world poverty, the Great Plague, Islamofascism, the 19th century First and Second Opium Wars with China, the First World War and the Vietnam War. Other events the book places blame on the British Empire for include the Second World War, the fathering of the United States and the drug trade. The book argues that all of these incidents had a negative impact on the world. Other arguments made in the book involve the popularity of homosexuality among the British nobility that the King James Bible was a deliberate act of heresy, and that the Piltdown Man hoax was a deliberate attempt by British academia to prove that they were a superior race. The book also gives insight in the Victorian educational system called "Victorian Fascism", that like Hitler, prepared the whole nation, "Superior British Race", to conquer the world. You must have been brought up in the ghetto eh....ya sound like a culturally challenged fkwit.....

Who are you talking to? The author of the book or to the messenger?.

... wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 9:09am:

capitosinora wrote on May 3rd, 2017 at 8:21pm: The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/86/The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg/300px-The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg In the work the author argues that many of the world's problems were caused by the British Empire and also criticises British culture. The book explanes thru the historical facts how the British Empire was evil, and responsible for the Irish famine, the atrocities committed by the Black and Tans during the Irish War of Independence, Racism, Invention of African slavery, Genocides around the world, the Scramble for Africa, the Iraq War, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Durand Line and the Revengs of the Afghan Royal Family and their Rare Earth Elements, global warming, world poverty, the Great Plague, Islamofascism, the 19th century First and Second Opium Wars with China, the First World War and the Vietnam War. Other events the book places blame on the British Empire for include the Second World War, the fathering of the United States and the drug trade. The book argues that all of these incidents had a negative impact on the world. Other arguments made in the book involve the popularity of homosexuality among the British nobility that the King James Bible was a deliberate act of heresy, and that the Piltdown Man hoax was a deliberate attempt by British academia to prove that they were a superior race. The book also gives insight in the Victorian educational system called "Victorian Fascism", that like Hitler, prepared the whole nation, "Superior British Race", to conquer the world. Yeah what about it?  Are you going to post a review of the book?

What about you?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 6:25am:

you could also argue that there were 101 ways it improved the world, but that's unfashionable at the moment. continue to dwell in misery, lefties.

Quote:

...............that there were 1001 ways it improved the world..................

capitosinora wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 11:21am:

... wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 9:09am: capitosinora wrote on May 3rd, 2017 at 8:21pm: The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/86/The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg/300px-The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg In the work the author argues that many of the world's problems were caused by the British Empire and also criticises British culture. The book explanes thru the historical facts how the British Empire was evil, and responsible for the Irish famine, the atrocities committed by the Black and Tans during the Irish War of Independence, Racism, Invention of African slavery, Genocides around the world, the Scramble for Africa, the Iraq War, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Durand Line and the Revengs of the Afghan Royal Family and their Rare Earth Elements, global warming, world poverty, the Great Plague, Islamofascism, the 19th century First and Second Opium Wars with China, the First World War and the Vietnam War. Other events the book places blame on the British Empire for include the Second World War, the fathering of the United States and the drug trade. The book argues that all of these incidents had a negative impact on the world. Other arguments made in the book involve the popularity of homosexuality among the British nobility that the King James Bible was a deliberate act of heresy, and that the Piltdown Man hoax was a deliberate attempt by British academia to prove that they were a superior race. The book also gives insight in the Victorian educational system called "Victorian Fascism", that like Hitler, prepared the whole nation, "Superior British Race", to conquer the world. Yeah what about it?  Are you going to post a review of the book? What about you?

the book is less useful then used toilet paper

Most of the civilised world would not exist without the British empire. 

capitosinora wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 11:21am:

... wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 9:09am: capitosinora wrote on May 3rd, 2017 at 8:21pm: The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/86/The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg/300px-The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg In the work the author argues that many of the world's problems were caused by the British Empire and also criticises British culture. The book explanes thru the historical facts how the British Empire was evil, and responsible for the Irish famine, the atrocities committed by the Black and Tans during the Irish War of Independence, Racism, Invention of African slavery, Genocides around the world, the Scramble for Africa, the Iraq War, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Durand Line and the Revengs of the Afghan Royal Family and their Rare Earth Elements, global warming, world poverty, the Great Plague, Islamofascism, the 19th century First and Second Opium Wars with China, the First World War and the Vietnam War. Other events the book places blame on the British Empire for include the Second World War, the fathering of the United States and the drug trade. The book argues that all of these incidents had a negative impact on the world. Other arguments made in the book involve the popularity of homosexuality among the British nobility that the King James Bible was a deliberate act of heresy, and that the Piltdown Man hoax was a deliberate attempt by British academia to prove that they were a superior race. The book also gives insight in the Victorian educational system called "Victorian Fascism", that like Hitler, prepared the whole nation, "Superior British Race", to conquer the world. Yeah what about it?  Are you going to post a review of the book? What about you?

I havent read it. 

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 11:25am:

capitosinora wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 11:21am: ... wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 9:09am: capitosinora wrote on May 3rd, 2017 at 8:21pm: The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/86/The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg/300px-The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg In the work the author argues that many of the world's problems were caused by the British Empire and also criticises British culture. The book explanes thru the historical facts how the British Empire was evil, and responsible for the Irish famine, the atrocities committed by the Black and Tans during the Irish War of Independence, Racism, Invention of African slavery, Genocides around the world, the Scramble for Africa, the Iraq War, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Durand Line and the Revengs of the Afghan Royal Family and their Rare Earth Elements, global warming, world poverty, the Great Plague, Islamofascism, the 19th century First and Second Opium Wars with China, the First World War and the Vietnam War. Other events the book places blame on the British Empire for include the Second World War, the fathering of the United States and the drug trade. The book argues that all of these incidents had a negative impact on the world. Other arguments made in the book involve the popularity of homosexuality among the British nobility that the King James Bible was a deliberate act of heresy, and that the Piltdown Man hoax was a deliberate attempt by British academia to prove that they were a superior race. The book also gives insight in the Victorian educational system called "Victorian Fascism", that like Hitler, prepared the whole nation, "Superior British Race", to conquer the world. Yeah what about it?  Are you going to post a review of the book? What about you? the book is less useful then used toilet paper

Have you red it?.
I guess your British nationalism doesn't allow you to do something like that.

rhino wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 11:28am:

Most of the civilised world would not exist without the British empire.

;D :D :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

Human beings have been far king the world up long before the poms. It's in our nature.

capitosinora wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 11:40am:

rhino wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 11:28am: Most of the civilised world would not exist without the British empire.  ;D :D :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

They did invent and built a load of stuff. What have Africans built?

capitosinora wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 11:40am:

rhino wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 11:28am: Most of the civilised world would not exist without the British empire.  ;D :D :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

constipated?

Mr Hammer wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 12:12pm:

capitosinora wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 11:40am: rhino wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 11:28am: Most of the civilised world would not exist without the British empire.  ;D :D :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o They did invent and built a load of stuff. What have Africans built?

Or the abbos

rhino wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 11:28am:

Most of the civilised world would not exist without the British empire.

What an arrogant and disgusting statement.
Typical for a British Nationalist.

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 12:59pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 12:12pm: capitosinora wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 11:40am: rhino wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 11:28am: Most of the civilised world would not exist without the British empire.  ;D :D :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o They did invent and built a load of stuff. What have Africans built? Or the abbos

Or "Democracy"with never democratically elected Monarch dictator.

Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, Dēmokratía "rule of the people")
Monarchy (Greek: μονάρχης, Monárkhēs "rule of elite")

capitosinora wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 1:23pm:

rhino wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 11:28am: Most of the civilised world would not exist without the British empire.  What an arrogant and disgusting statement. Typical for a British Nationalist.

Neither arrogant nor disgusting, but 100% accurate. Just what is your gripe with Great Britain, are you a descendent of a slave, or is it that you have an inferiority complex ......or maybe both?

Mr Hammer wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 12:12pm:

They did invent and built a load of stuff.

such as?

John Smith wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 2:32pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 12:12pm: They did invent and built a load of stuff. such as?

;D ;D ;D

Here we go.

John Smith wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 2:32pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 12:12pm: They did invent and built a load of stuff. such as?

The worldwide web. Steam engine, TV. There's loads of stuff.

here's 50


Here is the Radio Times list of the 50 greatest British inventions, in chronological order.
 







12:02PM GMT 08 Jan 2013





Reflecting telescope: Isaac Newton, 1668


Seed drill: Jethro Tull, 1701


Marine chronometer: John Harrison, 1761


Spinning frame: Richard Arkwright, 1768


Toothbrush: William Addis, c. 1770


Related Articles
1820s 'best decade for British innovation'
08 Jan 2013


Soda water: Joseph Priestley, 1772

Hydraulic press: Joseph Bramah, 1795

Steam engine: Richard Trevithick, 1801

Glider: George Cayley, 1804

Tension-spoked wheel: George Cayley, 1808

Tin can: Peter Durand, 1810

Modern fire extinguisher: George William Manby, 1818

Electric motor: Michael Faraday, 1821

Waterproof material: Charles Macintosh, 1823

Cement: Joseph Aspdin, 1824

Passenger railway: George Stephenson, 1825

Lawnmower: Edwin Beard Budding, 1827

Photography: William Henry Fox Talbot, 1835

Electric telegraph: Charles Wheatstone & William Cooke, 1837

Chocolate bar: JS Fry & Sons, 1847

Hypodermic syringe: Alexander Wood, 1853

Synthetic dye: William Perkin, 1856

Bessemer process: Henry Bessemer, 1856

Linoleum: Frederick Walton, 1860

Sewage system: Joseph Bazalgette, 1865

Modern Torpedo: Robert Whitehead, 1866

Telephone: Alexander Graham Bell, 1876

Light Bulb: Joseph Swan, 1880

Steam turbine: Charles Parsons, 1884

Safety bicycle: John Kemp Stanley, 1885

Pneumatic tyre: John Boyd Dunlop, 1887

Thermos flask: Sir James Dewar, 1892

Electric vacuum cleaner: Hubert Cecil Booth, 1901

Disc Brakes: Frederick William Lanchester, 1902

Stainless Steel: Harry Brearley, 1913

Military tank: Ernest Swinton, 1914

Television: John Logie Baird, 1925

Catseye: Percy Shaw, 1933

Jet Engine: Frank Whittle, 1937

Electronic programmable computer: Tommy Flowers, 1943

Hovercraft: Christopher Cockerell, 1953

Automatic kettle: Peter Hobbs, 1955

Float Glass: Alastair Pilkington, 1959

Hip Replacement: John Charnley, 1962

Carbon fibre: Royal Aircraft Establishment engineers, 1963

Collapsible baby buggy: Owen Maclaren, 1965

ATM: John Shepherd-Barron, 1967

World Wide Web: Tim Berners-Lee, 1989

Wind-up radio: Trevor Baylis, 1991

Steri-spray: Ian Helmore, c. 2008

;D

Sir Alec John Jeffreys, CH FRS (born 9 January 1950 in Oxford, Oxfordshire, England) is a British geneticist, who developed techniques for DNA fingerprinting and DNA profiling which are now used worldwide in forensic science to assist police detective work and to resolve paternity and immigration disputes.


Didn't African's invent Peanut butter?? ;D

;D

Fuzzball wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 2:28pm:

capitosinora wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 1:23pm: rhino wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 11:28am: Most of the civilised world would not exist without the British empire.  What an arrogant and disgusting statement. Typical for a British Nationalist. Neither arrogant nor disgusting, but 100% accurate. Just what is your gripe with Great Britain, are you a descendent of a slave, or is it that you have an inferiority complex ......or maybe both?

Neither of that just an independent observer who accidentally came across with this wonderful book.

Goodness, the ones that impress me most are

1/ The sewer system

2/ Electric motor

3/ Cement

4/ Telephone

They are individually earth changing

John Smith wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 2:32pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 12:12pm: They did invent and built a load of stuff. such as?

what a retard!! ;D ;D ;D

;D

If the inventions and the discoveries of the British and their colonial descendants were to suddenly vanish from the Earth - we'd damn near be back in the Stone Age.

And if the 'ethnic' migrants over the past 150 years had stayed where they were instead of migrating to a country where the most common names are all British - they'd be floundering in semi-poverty just as their compatriots do today who never migrated.

Envy is what most ethnics feel about Britain's many and varied accomplishments.

Now come on, John Smith ... be upstanding please for a moment of celebration and respect for the country that created the Modern World as we know it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akbzRuZmqVM

;D ;D ;D

Unconsciously, lefties know that former British colonies are more advanced than most of the world. A part of the reason they want non-Westerners to migrate here en masse is because they want to civilise them. What they're saying is: 'leave your 3rd world dump. Come here and enjoy the fruits of civilisation'. In effect, lefties have simply reversed the flow of traffic. Formerly, it was the British going to other countries and bringing them civilisation. Now, it's the lefties bringing other countries here to be civilised. 'Though no lefty will admit that.

capitosinora wrote on May 3^rd, 2017 at 8:21pm:

The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/86/The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg/300px-The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg In the work the author argues that many of the world's problems were caused by the British Empire and also criticises British culture. The book explanes thru the historical facts how the British Empire was evil, and responsible for the Irish famine, the atrocities committed by the Black and Tans during the Irish War of Independence, Racism, Invention of African slavery, Genocides around the world, the Scramble for Africa, the Iraq War, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Durand Line and the Revengs of the Afghan Royal Family and their Rare Earth Elements, global warming, world poverty, the Great Plague, Islamofascism, the 19th century First and Second Opium Wars with China, the First World War and the Vietnam War. Other events the book places blame on the British Empire for include the Second World War, the fathering of the United States and the drug trade. The book argues that all of these incidents had a negative impact on the world. Other arguments made in the book involve the popularity of homosexuality among the British nobility that the King James Bible was a deliberate act of heresy, and that the Piltdown Man hoax was a deliberate attempt by British academia to prove that they were a superior race. The book also gives insight in the Victorian educational system called "Victorian Fascism", that like Hitler, prepared the whole nation, "Superior British Race", to conquer the world.

;D

What the British Empire did was pretty much unique in human history. It ceded it's empire without being forced to by being over-run, leading to a long term collapse. It also exported liberal democracy to much of the world.

Britain invented sandwiches.

8-)

Britain and the British Empire stands for many things for many people.   One thing that always amazes me is that people seem to forget one most important fact about the British Empire - it was set up to profit the British nation and the British people at the expense of all the various native peoples which it ruled.   Today, we can look back and see the many benefits that the British Empire brought to Britain and from there, the world.   However, we should not lose sight of the many problems that it created in doing that.  The starvation, the poverty, the destruction and of course, the hatred that it fanned and allowed to flourish.   Nor, most importantly should we forget the racism and bigotry that it fostered.   Does one balance the other?   I'll leave it to you children to try and sort it out.  Not that you're doing a particularly good job of it at the moment.   Tsk, tsk.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 11:43pm:

Britain and the British Empire stands for many things for many people.   One thing that always amazes me is that people seem to forget one most important fact about the British Empire - it was set up to profit the British nation and the British people at the expense of all the various native peoples which it ruled.   Today, we can look back and see the many benefits that the British Empire brought to Britain and from there, the world.   However, we should not lose sight of the many problems that it created in doing that.  The starvation, the poverty, the destruction and of course, the hatred that it fanned and allowed to flourish.   Nor, most importantly should we forget the racism and bigotry that it fostered.   Does one balance the other?   I'll leave it to you children to try and sort it out.  Not that you're doing a particularly good job of it at the moment.   Tsk, tsk.    ::)

Rather than blame it on the Empire it's self, could we not blame it on what it was built on? Capitalism? Where's Marla these days?

Brian Ross wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 11:43pm:

Britain and the British Empire stands for many things for many people.   One thing that always amazes me is that people seem to forget one most important fact about the British Empire - it was set up to profit the British nation and the British people at the expense of all the various native peoples which it ruled.   Today, we can look back and see the many benefits that the British Empire brought to Britain and from there, the world.   However, we should not lose sight of the many problems that it created in doing that.  The starvation, the poverty, the destruction and of course, the hatred that it fanned and allowed to flourish.   Nor, most importantly should we forget the racism and bigotry that it fostered.   Does one balance the other?   I'll leave it to you children to try and sort it out.  Not that you're doing a particularly good job of it at the moment.   Tsk, tsk.    ::)

Brian, you can't keep blaming an empire from decades ago for the problems of today. The British Empire very much ended 30+ years ago for most of their colonies. Only a few 'countries' remain part of Britain.

Why would anyone want to keep blaming someone from 30 years or more for their own problems? I mean, I would blame people for problems that happened to me 30 years ago. But I would not keep blaming them passed the point of relevance. Why should independent nations keep blaming Britain for things that could have been fixed within a short period of time?

Brian Ross wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 11:43pm:

Britain and the British Empire stands for many things for many people.   One thing that always amazes me is that people seem to forget one most important fact about the British Empire - it was set up to profit the British nation and the British people at the expense of all the various native peoples which it ruled.

You do but jest, methinks.

Huge local business empires grew up around wherever the British made landfall and established their trading posts. Shanghai had thousands of the local Chinese making their fortunes or a good living from first the British and then all the other foreign trading enterprises.

Hong Kong went from being a sleepy fishing village to an economic powerhouse in which the locals prospered alongside the British.

And so on and so forth.

And then there's Australia .... a First World country in 200 years while those to the north of us still flounder in poverty.

And then India which adopted holus bolus almost every institution of the one-time British occupiers. Same with a dozen countries in Africa.

And all the while that Britain was creating wealth for the locals in far flung places through business and trading, the average Brit at home was working in appalling conditions in Dickensian "Satanic Mills" where the sky glowed red at night where the factories and foundries were. Child labour. Women. 18 hour work shifts. Sleeping next to the looms as their permanent residence.

Taking a trip around Britain's Midlands and elsewhere you'll see the sort of miserable terraced housing the average Brit called 'home' during these years when 'the sun never set on the British Empire'. It was only a very few who saw any benefit in their lives from British colonialism.

The notion much beloved of ethnics and self-haters like Brian is that the British people were enjoying a life of idle luxury at the expence of foreign locals slaving mercilessly in hideous conditions, but the truth is in fact quite the opposite. 

And then again, people like Brian never consider why everything is Made in China nowadays, and that the reason for this is China's Dickensian 'Satanic Mills' where the long work-hours and poor pay makes this all possible. But no, forget about today's semi-slave conditions in China and India - let's turn back the years and harp on endlessly about the guilt Britain should bear for its colonial years.

And then let's compare the legacy of Spain and Portugal's colonial exploits in comparison to that of Britain's.

South America.

Say no more.

 

Setanta wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 11:55pm:

Rather than blame it on the Empire it's self, could we not blame it on what it was built on? Capitalism? Where's Marla these days?

;D

Rumour has it that her application for the position of junior intern at the White House has been accepted on condition that she wear a blue dress and wear a lot of greasy Lip Balm .....

(She's a bitch! with the disposition of a feral cat protecting its young, but otherwise she's quite a lovable bong-suckin' bitch! in a dangerous sort of way. You don't want to get too close to her cage).

And then consider that when I was at school in Britain we were told by our teachers all about the nasty things that occurred during the colonial years - nothing was hidden from us. We were taught the good and the bad.

Compare this liberal and morally mature attitude to that of Japan where upon their defeat in WWII the story of their utter cruelty and barbarity across the Asia Pacific region was kept out of their history books and the classrooms of Japan.

Bare-faced denial was practiced by one-and-all from the top of the social hierarchy to the bottom. My own parents witnessed how the Japanese Occupying Forces treated the Chinese in Manchuria, with decapitated heads stuck on poles everywhere.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 7:12pm:

capitosinora wrote on May 3rd, 2017 at 8:21pm: The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/86/The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg/300px-The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg In the work the author argues that many of the world's problems were caused by the British Empire and also criticises British culture. The book explanes thru the historical facts how the British Empire was evil, and responsible for the Irish famine, the atrocities committed by the Black and Tans during the Irish War of Independence, Racism, Invention of African slavery, Genocides around the world, the Scramble for Africa, the Iraq War, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Durand Line and the Revengs of the Afghan Royal Family and their Rare Earth Elements, global warming, world poverty, the Great Plague, Islamofascism, the 19th century First and Second Opium Wars with China, the First World War and the Vietnam War. Other events the book places blame on the British Empire for include the Second World War, the fathering of the United States and the drug trade. The book argues that all of these incidents had a negative impact on the world. Other arguments made in the book involve the popularity of homosexuality among the British nobility that the King James Bible was a deliberate act of heresy, and that the Piltdown Man hoax was a deliberate attempt by British academia to prove that they were a superior race. The book also gives insight in the Victorian educational system called "Victorian Fascism", that like Hitler, prepared the whole nation, "Superior British Race", to conquer the world. ;D What the British Empire did was pretty much unique in human history. It ceded it's empire without being forced to by being over-run, leading to a long term collapse. It also exported liberal democracy to much of the world.

Maybe you wanted to say that British invented and exported liberal hypocrisy.
Or "Democracy"with never democratically elected  head of state (Monarch, dictator.) who has constitutional right to dismiss democratically elected prime minister. Do you remember what happened to Gough Whitlam?.
It looks you don't have a clue what a democracy is:

Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, Dēmokratía "rule of the people")
Monarchy (Greek: μονάρχης, Monárkhēs "rule of elite")

British civilised way

https://cdn.rt.com/files/2017.05/original/590b4271c36188dc078b457c.jpg


A father-of-two was forced to eat his own testicle before his teeth were knocked out with a hammer and chisel and his dead body dumped on a wasteland [/img]an[/img]d eaten by animals, a court has heard.
Jimmy Prout, 45, was allegedly subject to months of “Dark Ages” attacks by a gang of four people. The group had a strange relationship which had a “cultish dimension” to it, the jury at Newcastle Crown Court heard.

Ann Corbett, 26, Zahid Zaman, 43, Myra Wood, 50, and Kay Rayworth, 56, deny murder and causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable adult. They have all pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice.

It is alleged a series of events in late 2015 created tensions that led to a number of serious assaults against Prout, which included him having his teeth knocked out, his scrotum sliced and him being forced to eat his own testicle.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/03/vulnerable-father-forced-eat-testicle-tortured-death-court-hears/

How about you stop hiding behind your keyboard and tell us what your background nationality and inherent culture is.

But you won't, will you?

And that's because your own national history can easily be researched on Google to find out all the nasty bits.

Unless you confess to what sort of ethnic background you come from then we can only guess that you're posting from inside a Coward's Castle.

UnSubRocky wrote on May 5^th, 2017 at 5:25am:

Brian Ross wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 11:43pm: Britain and the British Empire stands for many things for many people.   One thing that always amazes me is that people seem to forget one most important fact about the British Empire - it was set up to profit the British nation and the British people at the expense of all the various native peoples which it ruled.   Today, we can look back and see the many benefits that the British Empire brought to Britain and from there, the world.   However, we should not lose sight of the many problems that it created in doing that.  The starvation, the poverty, the destruction and of course, the hatred that it fanned and allowed to flourish.   Nor, most importantly should we forget the racism and bigotry that it fostered.   Does one balance the other?   I'll leave it to you children to try and sort it out.  Not that you're doing a particularly good job of it at the moment.   Tsk, tsk.    ::) Brian, you can't keep blaming an empire from decades ago for the problems of today. The British Empire very much ended 30+ years ago for most of their colonies. Only a few 'countries' remain part of Britain. Why would anyone want to keep blaming someone from 30 years or more for their own problems? I mean, I would blame people for problems that happened to me 30 years ago. But I would not keep blaming them passed the point of relevance. Why should independent nations keep blaming Britain for things that could have been fixed within a short period of time?

You forget, the British and other Imperialists destroyed the native power structures when they took over the regions they governed.  They replaced them with faux versions of their own power structure.  Then they cleared out when being an Empire became too embarrassing.  The result was invariably more than 30 years of mismanagement.   Made up of disparate tribes and societies, most of which hated one another they would often lapse into civil or international conflict.   Famines were common as were over and under production of goods.  Were the British and other Imperial powers to blame?  In party.  After all, they trained the local intelligentsia to govern first in their names and then in their own.   However, as you point out, the local intelligentsia had to take responsibility for their own mismanagement and they have.  After initial periods of instability, most former colonial possessions have settled down to become reasonably well governed.   30 years BTW is but a blink of an eye in the scale of world history.  It is just one generation on human time scales.    ::)

Lord Herbert wrote on May 5^th, 2017 at 7:50am:

Brian Ross wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 11:43pm: Britain and the British Empire stands for many things for many people.   One thing that always amazes me is that people seem to forget one most important fact about the British Empire - it was set up to profit the British nation and the British people at the expense of all the various native peoples which it ruled. You do but jest, methinks. Huge local business empires grew up around wherever the British made landfall and established their trading posts. Shanghai had thousands of the local Chinese making their fortunes or a good living from first the British and then all the other foreign trading enterprises. Hong Kong went from being a sleepy fishing village to an economic powerhouse in which the locals prospered alongside the British. And so on and so forth. And then there's Australia .... a First World country in 200 years while those to the north of us still flounder in poverty. And then India which adopted holus bolus almost every institution of the one-time British occupiers. Same with a dozen countries in Africa. And all the while that Britain was creating wealth for the locals in far flung places through business and trading, the average Brit at home was working in appalling conditions in Dickensian "Satanic Mills" where the sky glowed red at night where the factories and foundries were. Child labour. Women. 18 hour work shifts. Sleeping next to the looms as their permanent residence. Taking a trip around Britain's Midlands and elsewhere you'll see the sort of miserable terraced housing the average Brit called 'home' during these years when 'the sun never set on the British Empire'. It was only a very few who saw any benefit in their lives from British colonialism. The notion much beloved of ethnics and self-haters like Brian is that the British people were enjoying a life of idle luxury at the expence of foreign locals slaving mercilessly in hideous conditions, but the truth is in fact quite the opposite.  And then again, people like Brian never consider why everything is Made in China nowadays, and that the reason for this is China's Dickensian 'Satanic Mills' where the long work-hours and poor pay makes this all possible. But no, forget about today's semi-slave conditions in China and India - let's turn back the years and harp on endlessly about the guilt Britain should bear for its colonial years. And then let's compare the legacy of Spain and Portugal's colonial exploits in comparison to that of Britain's. South America. Say no more.

You make some valid points, Herbie and none which I will deny.  However, in the case of Australia in particular it's history post federation with the British Empire was not a happy one.  After WWI in particular, Australia sought to modify the British Empire from a UK centric one to a Imperial powers force, where the powers outside the UK controlled the Empire and directed its defence and political forces for their benefit, rather than the benefit of the UK.  However, the UK resisted that and it was the spark that saw the disintegration of the Empire.  Canada looked southwards to the USA.  Australia, despite being loyal to the UK saw its military forces directed towards disaster when the UK controlled them (witness the battle between Churchill and Curtin over where the 2nd AIF was to be deployed, once it left North Africa).  It saw it's beliefs in the UK's Royal Navy destroyed when Force Z was sunk and Singapore taken.   After the war, despite offering the use of it's land for UK Atomic Tests, it was not to see it repaid with nuclear knowledge.    New Zealand was more loyal to the UK until it joined the EU, and so it saw it's main market for it's dairy and sheep products taken from it by an uncaring London.   Herbie, like Churchill you sound astounded that we, as independent nations should seek to get something in return for the blood we shed on your ex-nation's behalf.   Tsk, tsk.    ::)

Lord Herbert wrote on May 5^th, 2017 at 4:45pm:

How about you stop hiding behind your keyboard and tell us what your background nationality and inherent culture is. But you won't, will you? And that's because your own national history can easily be researched on Google to find out all the nasty bits. Unless you confess to what sort of ethnic background you come from then we can only guess that you're posting from inside a Coward's Castle.

How about you tell us what your background nationality and inherent culture is.

Lord Herbert wrote on May 5^th, 2017 at 4:45pm:

How about you stop hiding behind your keyboard and tell us what your background nationality and inherent culture is. But you won't, will you? And that's because your own national history can easily be researched on Google to find out all the nasty bits. Unless you confess to what sort of ethnic background you come from then we can only guess that you're posting from inside a Coward's Castle.

capitosinora is a Croat.

capitosinora wrote on May 5^th, 2017 at 6:20pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on May 5th, 2017 at 4:45pm: How about you stop hiding behind your keyboard and tell us what your background nationality and inherent culture is. But you won't, will you? And that's because your own national history can easily be researched on Google to find out all the nasty bits. Unless you confess to what sort of ethnic background you come from then we can only guess that you're posting from inside a Coward's Castle. How about you tell us what your background nationality and inherent culture is.

You little shìt.

rhino wrote on May 5^th, 2017 at 6:25pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on May 5th, 2017 at 4:45pm: How about you stop hiding behind your keyboard and tell us what your background nationality and inherent culture is. But you won't, will you? And that's because your own national history can easily be researched on Google to find out all the nasty bits. Unless you confess to what sort of ethnic background you come from then we can only guess that you're posting from inside a Coward's Castle. capitosinora is a Croat.

Irish dude

;D :o 8-)

rhino wrote on May 5^th, 2017 at 6:25pm:

capitosinora is a Croat.

Of all the Croats I've worked with over the years there was only one who was inconsolably anti-British.

He had worked in Germany in the mines and didn't have a bad word to say about the Germans ... World War One ....  millions killed on the field of battle .... World War Two .... millions killed on the field of battle .... millions killed in genocidal factories ....

... not a problem.

;D ;D ;D

Lord Herbert wrote on May 5^th, 2017 at 6:26pm:

capitosinora wrote on May 5th, 2017 at 6:20pm: Lord Herbert wrote on May 5th, 2017 at 4:45pm: How about you stop hiding behind your keyboard and tell us what your background nationality and inherent culture is. But you won't, will you? And that's because your own national history can easily be researched on Google to find out all the nasty bits. Unless you confess to what sort of ethnic background you come from then we can only guess that you're posting from inside a Coward's Castle. How about you tell us what your background nationality and inherent culture is. You little shìt.

Ha, ha Is it Aussie or British forum?

Brian Ross wrote on May 5^th, 2017 at 6:07pm:

You forget, the British and other Imperialists destroyed the native power structures when they took over the regions they governed.  They replaced them with faux versions of their own power structure.  Then they cleared out when being an Empire became too embarrassing.  The result was invariably more than 30 years of mismanagement.   Made up of disparate tribes and societies, most of which hated one another they would often lapse into civil or international conflict.   Famines were common as were over and under production of goods.  Were the British and other Imperial powers to blame?  In party.  After all, they trained the local intelligentsia to govern first in their names and then in their own.   However, as you point out, the local intelligentsia had to take responsibility for their own mismanagement and they have.  After initial periods of instability, most former colonial possessions have settled down to become reasonably well governed.

Yeah... A native power structure. One where they kill each other off to get the dominant roles in their societies. I would not call the replacement structures as fakes. What the British got the natives to do was to set up a system of economic structure, via the establishment of new industries that follow the old. I have a book on this, and I want to read it all before I make further comment.

And the civil wars erupting with the British colonial powers re-mapping borders is not something we can blame the British. Inter-tribal conflict had been occurring between tribes since long before the British came along. We could probably credit the British for trying to resolve centuries-long conflicts.


Quote:

30 years BTW is but a blink of an eye in the scale of world history.  It is just one generation on human time scales.    ::)

Well, I am only 38 years old, and I don't consider the last 30 years a blink of an eye. If I can grow up to become a 38-year-old who has been constructive for the last 25 years, so can third world societies get themselves out of their self-inflicted mess that they have had for themselves. All British-derived problems should have been resolved in the first few years of their independence.

UnSubRocky wrote on May 5^th, 2017 at 10:53pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 5th, 2017 at 6:07pm: You forget, the British and other Imperialists destroyed the native power structures when they took over the regions they governed.  They replaced them with faux versions of their own power structure.  Then they cleared out when being an Empire became too embarrassing.  The result was invariably more than 30 years of mismanagement.   Made up of disparate tribes and societies, most of which hated one another they would often lapse into civil or international conflict.   Famines were common as were over and under production of goods.  Were the British and other Imperial powers to blame?  In party.  After all, they trained the local intelligentsia to govern first in their names and then in their own.   However, as you point out, the local intelligentsia had to take responsibility for their own mismanagement and they have.  After initial periods of instability, most former colonial possessions have settled down to become reasonably well governed. Yeah... A native power structure. One where they kill each other off to get the dominant roles in their societies.

Not necessarily so.  Native power structures consisted of stable monarchies, tribal systems, etc.  Most were as good as Europe had experienced during the Medieval period.   They had their faults, without a doubt but they offered stability and of course, continuity.  The Europeans uprooted all that and overturned it.  They changed the agriculture and settlement patterns to the detriment of the locals.  See Diamonds, "Guns, Germs and Steel" to see what I mean.


Quote:

I would not call the replacement structures as fakes. What the British got the natives to do was to set up a system of economic structure, via the establishment of new industries that follow the old. I have a book on this, and I want to read it all before I make further comment.

When was it written and by whom?


Quote:

And the civil wars erupting with the British colonial powers re-mapping borders is not something we can blame the British. Inter-tribal conflict had been occurring between tribes since long before the British came along. We could probably credit the British for trying to resolve centuries-long conflicts.

Intertribal conflict was relatively rare before the arrival of the Europeans, UnSubRocky, primarily because the societies were divided along tribal lines.   When the Europeans arrived, the cut across the traditional tribal boundaries and imposed their own colonial ones and as a consequence you have conflict arising.


Quote:

[quote]30 years BTW is but a blink of an eye in the scale of world history.  It is just one generation on human time scales.    ::)

Well, I am only 38 years old, and I don't consider the last 30 years a blink of an eye. If I can grow up to become a 38-year-old who has been constructive for the last 25 years, so can third world societies get themselves out of their self-inflicted mess that they have had for themselves. All British-derived problems should have been resolved in the first few years of their independence.[/quote]

Sorry, you are but a youngster.  30 years is but one generation.   Most changes to societies before the 20th century took multiple generations to occur.   That you can be constructive in 38 years is all well and good.  Societies grappling with all the problems that they had been presented with by colonialism take longer.   ::)

Every society that has been colonised and later decolonised has been able to either get better with age or revert back to tribalism. African countries decolonised 30-40 years ago have generally fallen back into third world status, even when colonial powers left them with a stable system. Places like India, this year marking 70 years since independence, have wobbled their way towards an okay standard of living. Australia had colonialism 116 years ago and has gone on to be better than its British colonial power. Same with New Zealand. Canada is basically about 150 years independent of Britain. Doing quite well. It is just the countries and regions where they could not give a damn about following British customs that have fallen back into barbarism.

capitosinora wrote on May 5^th, 2017 at 6:29pm:

rhino wrote on May 5th, 2017 at 6:25pm: Lord Herbert wrote on May 5th, 2017 at 4:45pm: How about you stop hiding behind your keyboard and tell us what your background nationality and inherent culture is. But you won't, will you? And that's because your own national history can easily be researched on Google to find out all the nasty bits. Unless you confess to what sort of ethnic background you come from then we can only guess that you're posting from inside a Coward's Castle. capitosinora is a Croat. Irish dude ;D :o 8-)

Nonsense. Croat or Serb, which is it?

capitosinora wrote on May 5^th, 2017 at 9:43am:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 7:12pm: capitosinora wrote on May 3rd, 2017 at 8:21pm: The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/86/The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg/300px-The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg In the work the author argues that many of the world's problems were caused by the British Empire and also criticises British culture. The book explanes thru the historical facts how the British Empire was evil, and responsible for the Irish famine, the atrocities committed by the Black and Tans during the Irish War of Independence, Racism, Invention of African slavery, Genocides around the world, the Scramble for Africa, the Iraq War, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Durand Line and the Revengs of the Afghan Royal Family and their Rare Earth Elements, global warming, world poverty, the Great Plague, Islamofascism, the 19th century First and Second Opium Wars with China, the First World War and the Vietnam War. Other events the book places blame on the British Empire for include the Second World War, the fathering of the United States and the drug trade. The book argues that all of these incidents had a negative impact on the world. Other arguments made in the book involve the popularity of homosexuality among the British nobility that the King James Bible was a deliberate act of heresy, and that the Piltdown Man hoax was a deliberate attempt by British academia to prove that they were a superior race. The book also gives insight in the Victorian educational system called "Victorian Fascism", that like Hitler, prepared the whole nation, "Superior British Race", to conquer the world. ;D What the British Empire did was pretty much unique in human history. It ceded it's empire without being forced to by being over-run, leading to a long term collapse. It also exported liberal democracy to much of the world. Maybe you wanted to say that British invented and exported liberal hypocrisy. Or "Democracy"with never democratically elected  head of state (Monarch, dictator.) who has constitutional right to dismiss democratically elected prime minister. Do you remember what happened to Gough Whitlam?. It looks you don't have a clue what a democracy is: Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, Dēmokratía "rule of the people") Monarchy (Greek: μονάρχης, Monárkhēs "rule of elite")

They exported democracy and freedom. Are you trying to blame the Queen for you losing the referendum?


Quote:

You forget, the British and other Imperialists destroyed the native power structures when they took over the regions they governed.

Is that a bad thing? The power structures in central Africa were all about capturing slaves to sell. For the most part they replaced some kind of dictatorship with democracy.


Quote:

The result was invariably more than 30 years of mismanagement.   Made up of disparate tribes and societies, most of which hated one another they would often lapse into civil or international conflict.   Famines were common as were over and under production of goods.  Were the British and other Imperial powers to blame?  In party.  After all, they trained the local intelligentsia to govern first in their names and then in their own.

WTF are you on about?


Quote:

Not necessarily so.  Native power structures consisted of stable monarchies, tribal systems, etc.

Are you a fan of dictatorship Brian? Or do you just like the fact that the camel trains ran on time?


Quote:

Most were as good as Europe had experienced during the Medieval period.

How lovely.


Quote:

They had their faults, without a doubt but they offered stability and of course, continuity.

Would you describe the absence of freedom and democracy as a fault? Or are you not allowed to criticise other nations or religions?


Quote:

The Europeans uprooted all that and overturned it.  They changed the agriculture and settlement patterns to the detriment of the locals.  See Diamonds, "Guns, Germs and Steel" to see what I mean.

I have read that book, but it lends no insight into your blathering. It merely explains why they were able to do what they did.


Quote:

Intertribal conflict was relatively rare before the arrival of the Europeans, UnSubRocky, primarily because the societies were divided along tribal lines.

You have no clue Brian.

Brian Ross wrote on May 6^th, 2017 at 11:26pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on May 5th, 2017 at 10:53pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 5th, 2017 at 6:07pm: You forget, the British and other Imperialists destroyed the native power structures when they took over the regions they governed.  They replaced them with faux versions of their own power structure.  Then they cleared out when being an Empire became too embarrassing.  The result was invariably more than 30 years of mismanagement.   Made up of disparate tribes and societies, most of which hated one another they would often lapse into civil or international conflict.   Famines were common as were over and under production of goods.  Were the British and other Imperial powers to blame?  In party.  After all, they trained the local intelligentsia to govern first in their names and then in their own.   However, as you point out, the local intelligentsia had to take responsibility for their own mismanagement and they have.  After initial periods of instability, most former colonial possessions have settled down to become reasonably well governed. Yeah... A native power structure. One where they kill each other off to get the dominant roles in their societies. Not necessarily so.  Native power structures consisted of stable monarchies, tribal systems, etc.  Most were as good as Europe had experienced during the Medieval period.   They had their faults, without a doubt but they offered stability and of course, continuity.  The Europeans uprooted all that and overturned it.  They changed the agriculture and settlement patterns to the detriment of the locals.  See Diamonds, "Guns, Germs and Steel" to see what I mean. Quote: I would not call the replacement structures as fakes. What the British got the natives to do was to set up a system of economic structure, via the establishment of new industries that follow the old. I have a book on this, and I want to read it all before I make further comment. When was it written and by whom? [quote] And the civil wars erupting with the British colonial powers re-mapping borders is not something we can blame the British. Inter-tribal conflict had been occurring between tribes since long before the British came along. We could probably credit the British for trying to resolve centuries-long conflicts.

Intertribal conflict was relatively rare before the arrival of the Europeans, UnSubRocky, primarily because the societies were divided along tribal lines.   When the Europeans arrived, the cut across the traditional tribal boundaries and imposed their own colonial ones and as a consequence you have conflict arising.


Quote:

[quote]30 years BTW is but a blink of an eye in the scale of world history.  It is just one generation on human time scales.    ::)

Well, I am only 38 years old, and I don't consider the last 30 years a blink of an eye. If I can grow up to become a 38-year-old who has been constructive for the last 25 years, so can third world societies get themselves out of their self-inflicted mess that they have had for themselves. All British-derived problems should have been resolved in the first few years of their independence.[/quote]

Sorry, you are but a youngster.  30 years is but one generation.   Most changes to societies before the 20th century took multiple generations to occur.   That you can be constructive in 38 years is all well and good.  Societies grappling with all the problems that they had been presented with by colonialism take longer.   ::)[/quote]

The fact is that Britain has always been one  isolated Island with unique culture (you can call it anti-culture) that has little to do with civilised Europe.
By the way the genocide on Australian aborigines was specifically done by British and not by Europeans.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2017 at 8:25am:

capitosinora wrote on May 5th, 2017 at 9:43am: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 7:12pm: capitosinora wrote on May 3rd, 2017 at 8:21pm: The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/86/The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg/300px-The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg In the work the author argues that many of the world's problems were caused by the British Empire and also criticises British culture. The book explanes thru the historical facts how the British Empire was evil, and responsible for the Irish famine, the atrocities committed by the Black and Tans during the Irish War of Independence, Racism, Invention of African slavery, Genocides around the world, the Scramble for Africa, the Iraq War, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Durand Line and the Revengs of the Afghan Royal Family and their Rare Earth Elements, global warming, world poverty, the Great Plague, Islamofascism, the 19th century First and Second Opium Wars with China, the First World War and the Vietnam War. Other events the book places blame on the British Empire for include the Second World War, the fathering of the United States and the drug trade. The book argues that all of these incidents had a negative impact on the world. Other arguments made in the book involve the popularity of homosexuality among the British nobility that the King James Bible was a deliberate act of heresy, and that the Piltdown Man hoax was a deliberate attempt by British academia to prove that they were a superior race. The book also gives insight in the Victorian educational system called "Victorian Fascism", that like Hitler, prepared the whole nation, "Superior British Race", to conquer the world. ;D What the British Empire did was pretty much unique in human history. It ceded it's empire without being forced to by being over-run, leading to a long term collapse. It also exported liberal democracy to much of the world. Maybe you wanted to say that British invented and exported liberal hypocrisy. Or "Democracy"with never democratically elected  head of state (Monarch, dictator.) who has constitutional right to dismiss democratically elected prime minister. Do you remember what happened to Gough Whitlam?. It looks you don't have a clue what a democracy is: Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, Dēmokratía "rule of the people") Monarchy (Greek: μονάρχης, Monárkhēs "rule of elite") They exported democracy and freedom. Are you trying to blame the Queen for you losing the referendum?

It has nothing to do with your referendum. The fact is that Monarchy and Democracy is not the same so if you try to export British "democracy' you could be nothing else but cynical hypocrite.
I suggest you to read Plato's 'Republic".
Ah yes someone has said that ignorance and arrogance are twins who like to be together.

Yes I realise they are not the same. That is why we have two different words for them.

Do you think Australia is a democracy?

For those ignorant persons who criticize the British Empire?

1) What was the alternative to modernity? If there was any, which country would have been the better alternative? The only other nation that came close was France, but they lost the war.

2) The Westminster system of government (which is distinct from parliamentary democracy) is actually the best kind of government in the world. Almost all former British colonies that transitioned to an American-style presidential system all became dictatorships, which would have been impossible under a Constitutional Monarchy. The only countries that didn't were Belize, Jamaica, Malaysia, etc. - all of which countries have had stable governments and no instances of a military dictatorship (of course, they're not perfect, but they're much better off than say Nigeria or Kenya).

3) Britain promoted pluralism and tolerance of different cultures and religions.

4) British institutions have led to unprecedented prosperity and freedom for those who have adopted them.

5) Britain abolished slavery by passing an Act of Parliament.

6) Slaves in the American South who escaped to Canada were shocked at the irony of a so-called 'tyrannical' monarchy that granted them equal rights over a republic.

Shall I continue?

The footprint of the French Empire on Western Europe are the wealthy, liberal democracies. France did for Europe what the British did for the new world.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 9:38pm:

The footprint of the French Empire on Western Europe are the wealthy, liberal democracies. France did for Europe what the British did for the new world.

Mmm, that's a good characterization.

capitosinora wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 11:49am:

By the way the genocide on Australian aborigines was specifically done by British and not by Europeans.[/b]

You are misinformed, there was no Aboriginal genocide nor was there any attempt to do so.

rhino wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 10:17pm:

capitosinora wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 11:49am: By the way the genocide on Australian aborigines was specifically done by British and not by Europeans.[/b] You are misinformed, there was no Aboriginal genocide nor was there any attempt to do so.

;D

There is no alternative to the past, none. There is no alternative to what is happening right this instant. Alternatives only exist in the future.


Something that often goes unnoticed about Gandhi and the British Empire:  had the man gone up against Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Un, a Banana Republic, garden variety tin-pot dictator or several other forms of government, he would have ended up dead. The British, despite whatever faults they have/had tried to do the right thing, tried to follow the rule of law and understood the importance of fair play, even when they failed completely.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 7:12pm:

capitosinora wrote on May 3rd, 2017 at 8:21pm: The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/86/The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg/300px-The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg In the work the author argues that many of the world's problems were caused by the British Empire and also criticises British culture. The book explanes thru the historical facts how the British Empire was evil, and responsible for the Irish famine, the atrocities committed by the Black and Tans during the Irish War of Independence, Racism, Invention of African slavery, Genocides around the world, the Scramble for Africa, the Iraq War, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Durand Line and the Revengs of the Afghan Royal Family and their Rare Earth Elements, global warming, world poverty, the Great Plague, Islamofascism, the 19th century First and Second Opium Wars with China, the First World War and the Vietnam War. Other events the book places blame on the British Empire for include the Second World War, the fathering of the United States and the drug trade. The book argues that all of these incidents had a negative impact on the world. Other arguments made in the book involve the popularity of homosexuality among the British nobility that the King James Bible was a deliberate act of heresy, and that the Piltdown Man hoax was a deliberate attempt by British academia to prove that they were a superior race. The book also gives insight in the Victorian educational system called "Victorian Fascism", that like Hitler, prepared the whole nation, "Superior British Race", to conquer the world. ;D What the British Empire did was pretty much unique in human history. It ceded it's empire without being forced to by being over-run, leading to a long term collapse. It also exported liberal democracy to much of the world.

They may have exported democracy, but that was only in theory, because most of the British I ever met only believe in democratic principle, if they can be the boss, no matter if they are cleverer or more able, just because they think, they are superior by being British.
The best Colonizers, as far I read were still the Romans, because they innovated a lot in the countries they occupied, including England.
In the end all Colonizers are resented by the people subjugated, because they are being exploited.
But rule Brittania was taken from the British by America without another war against the British, but through World War 1 and 2, and the British are still not over it.
As far as I,am concerned, it doesn't matter if you are from a so-called superior country or race, but what you are as a person and what you achieve in life, although where one is born and lives, has a big impact on it.

rhino wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 10:17pm:

capitosinora wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 11:49am: By the way the genocide on Australian aborigines was specifically done by British and not by Europeans.[/b] You are misinformed, there was no Aboriginal genocide nor was there any attempt to do so.

The UN Convention on Genocide, defines Genocide as being:


Quote:

...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.

        — Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Definition e. has definitely occurred in Australia against Indigenous Australians.  Indigenous children were forcibly transferred from one group to another group, without the permission of the childrens' parents. 

Wake up to yourself, Rhino, you are engaged in what the UN Convention defines as:


Quote:

(a) Genocide;     (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;     (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;     (d) Attempt to commit genocide;     (e) Complicity in genocide.

Section e.  Complicity in genocide.   Tsk, tsk.   You are denying the historical record of the Stolen Generations.    ::) ::)

The genocide of the indigenous peoples of Australia occurred under Australian control, mainly after Federation, not under the hands of the British. We often like to shift the blame to Britain, but we're actually the ones to blame. It was the Commonwealth/States which treated the indigenous peoples poorly, not the British.

hawil wrote on May 9^th, 2017 at 12:25pm:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 7:12pm: capitosinora wrote on May 3rd, 2017 at 8:21pm: The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/86/The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg/300px-The_Evil_Empire_Cover.jpg In the work the author argues that many of the world's problems were caused by the British Empire and also criticises British culture. The book explanes thru the historical facts how the British Empire was evil, and responsible for the Irish famine, the atrocities committed by the Black and Tans during the Irish War of Independence, Racism, Invention of African slavery, Genocides around the world, the Scramble for Africa, the Iraq War, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Durand Line and the Revengs of the Afghan Royal Family and their Rare Earth Elements, global warming, world poverty, the Great Plague, Islamofascism, the 19th century First and Second Opium Wars with China, the First World War and the Vietnam War. Other events the book places blame on the British Empire for include the Second World War, the fathering of the United States and the drug trade. The book argues that all of these incidents had a negative impact on the world. Other arguments made in the book involve the popularity of homosexuality among the British nobility that the King James Bible was a deliberate act of heresy, and that the Piltdown Man hoax was a deliberate attempt by British academia to prove that they were a superior race. The book also gives insight in the Victorian educational system called "Victorian Fascism", that like Hitler, prepared the whole nation, "Superior British Race", to conquer the world. ;D What the British Empire did was pretty much unique in human history. It ceded it's empire without being forced to by being over-run, leading to a long term collapse. It also exported liberal democracy to much of the world. They may have exported democracy, but that was only in theory, because most of the British I ever met only believe in democratic principle, if they can be the boss, no matter if they are cleverer or more able, just because they think, they are superior by being British. The best Colonizers, as far I read were still the Romans, because they innovated a lot in the countries they occupied, including England. In the end all Colonizers are resented by the people subjugated, because they are being exploited. But rule Brittania was taken from the British by America without another war against the British, but through World War 1 and 2, and the British are still not over it. As far as I,am concerned, it doesn't matter if you are from a so-called superior country or race, but what you are as a person and what you achieve in life, although where one is born and lives, has a big impact on it.

It was the Romans who planted the seeds of liberal democracy in western Europe. It is no coincidence that Rome occupied and shaped Britain and France, effectively starting with a blank slate as far as settled civilisation goes. But they never subdued the Germans. Nearly two thousand years later, it was the French bringing liberty and democracy to Germany and the rest of Europe, not once, but three times.

Brian Ross wrote on May 9^th, 2017 at 6:18pm:

Indigenous children were forcibly transferred from one group to another group, without the permission of the childrens' parents.

didnt happen. The only children removed were done so out of regard for the childrens welfare, even then, full blood children were not removed. It was illegal to do so. The public record shows clearly the intent which was altruistic. There was no genocide or any attempt at such, the public record at the time shows this clearly.

rhino wrote on May 9^th, 2017 at 10:08pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 9th, 2017 at 6:18pm: Indigenous children were forcibly transferred from one group to another group, without the permission of the childrens' parents.  didnt happen. The only children removed were done so out of regard for the childrens welfare, even then, full blood children were not removed. It was illegal to do so. The public record shows clearly the intent which was altruistic. There was no genocide or any attempt at such, the public record at the time shows this clearly.

That was how it was sold, Rhino, as a for their benefit. Unofficially there was an intention to breed out the indigenous race. Just because the public record does not support it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

It appears to me that you don't want to accept the truth as though doing so would challenge your fundamental views of the world, thereby creating dissonance between your thoughts and reality. It's like when a North Korean flees their country and realise that Kim Jong Un didn't discover DNA.

Auggie wrote on May 10^th, 2017 at 2:55pm:

rhino wrote on May 9th, 2017 at 10:08pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 9th, 2017 at 6:18pm: Indigenous children were forcibly transferred from one group to another group, without the permission of the childrens' parents.  didnt happen. The only children removed were done so out of regard for the childrens welfare, even then, full blood children were not removed. It was illegal to do so. The public record shows clearly the intent which was altruistic. There was no genocide or any attempt at such, the public record at the time shows this clearly. That was how it was sold, Rhino, as a for their benefit. Unofficially there was an intention to breed out the indigenous race. Just because the public record does not support it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It appears to me that you don't want to accept the truth as though doing so would challenge your fundamental views of the world, thereby creating dissonance between your thoughts and reality. It's like when a North Korean flees their country and realise that Kim Jong Un didn't discover DNA.

The truth is on the government record, you keep negating that but that is a fact, the stolen generation is a myth as is the attempted genocide, myths that are not supported by fact..

rhino wrote on May 10^th, 2017 at 3:22pm:

Auggie wrote on May 10th, 2017 at 2:55pm: rhino wrote on May 9th, 2017 at 10:08pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 9th, 2017 at 6:18pm: Indigenous children were forcibly transferred from one group to another group, without the permission of the childrens' parents.  didnt happen. The only children removed were done so out of regard for the childrens welfare, even then, full blood children were not removed. It was illegal to do so. The public record shows clearly the intent which was altruistic. There was no genocide or any attempt at such, the public record at the time shows this clearly. That was how it was sold, Rhino, as a for their benefit. Unofficially there was an intention to breed out the indigenous race. Just because the public record does not support it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It appears to me that you don't want to accept the truth as though doing so would challenge your fundamental views of the world, thereby creating dissonance between your thoughts and reality. It's like when a North Korean flees their country and realise that Kim Jong Un didn't discover DNA. The truth is on the government record, you keep negating that but that is a fact, the stolen generation is a myth as is the attempted genocide, myths that are not supported by fact..

Official government record: https://www.findandconnect.gov.au/

"This website is one component of the Australian government’s Find & Connect services and projects."

Stolen Generations

"The Stolen Generations are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who, when they were children, were taken away from their families and communities as the result of past government policies.

"Children were removed by governments, churches and welfare bodies to be brought up in institutions, fostered out or adopted by white families.

"The removal of Aboriginal children took place from the early days of British colonisation in Australia.

"It broke important cultural, spiritual and family ties and has left a lasting and intergenerational impact on the lives and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people."

greggerypeccary wrote on May 10^th, 2017 at 3:54pm:

rhino wrote on May 10th, 2017 at 3:22pm: Auggie wrote on May 10th, 2017 at 2:55pm: rhino wrote on May 9th, 2017 at 10:08pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 9th, 2017 at 6:18pm: Indigenous children were forcibly transferred from one group to another group, without the permission of the childrens' parents.  didnt happen. The only children removed were done so out of regard for the childrens welfare, even then, full blood children were not removed. It was illegal to do so. The public record shows clearly the intent which was altruistic. There was no genocide or any attempt at such, the public record at the time shows this clearly. That was how it was sold, Rhino, as a for their benefit. Unofficially there was an intention to breed out the indigenous race. Just because the public record does not support it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It appears to me that you don't want to accept the truth as though doing so would challenge your fundamental views of the world, thereby creating dissonance between your thoughts and reality. It's like when a North Korean flees their country and realise that Kim Jong Un didn't discover DNA. The truth is on the government record, you keep negating that but that is a fact, the stolen generation is a myth as is the attempted genocide, myths that are not supported by fact.. Official government record: https://www.findandconnect.gov.au/ "This website is one component of the Australian government’s Find & Connect services and projects." Stolen Generations "The Stolen Generations are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who, when they were children, were taken away from their families and communities as the result of past government policies. "Children were removed by governments, churches and welfare bodies to be brought up in institutions, fostered out or adopted by white families. "The removal of Aboriginal children took place from the early days of British colonisation in Australia. "It broke important cultural, spiritual and family ties and has left a lasting and intergenerational impact on the lives and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people."

Rhino's been online for a while, and because he hasn't responded, therefore I assume that his whole world has come crashing down around him.

Auggie wrote on May 10^th, 2017 at 8:49pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 10th, 2017 at 3:54pm: rhino wrote on May 10th, 2017 at 3:22pm: Auggie wrote on May 10th, 2017 at 2:55pm: rhino wrote on May 9th, 2017 at 10:08pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 9th, 2017 at 6:18pm: Indigenous children were forcibly transferred from one group to another group, without the permission of the childrens' parents.  didnt happen. The only children removed were done so out of regard for the childrens welfare, even then, full blood children were not removed. It was illegal to do so. The public record shows clearly the intent which was altruistic. There was no genocide or any attempt at such, the public record at the time shows this clearly. That was how it was sold, Rhino, as a for their benefit. Unofficially there was an intention to breed out the indigenous race. Just because the public record does not support it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It appears to me that you don't want to accept the truth as though doing so would challenge your fundamental views of the world, thereby creating dissonance between your thoughts and reality. It's like when a North Korean flees their country and realise that Kim Jong Un didn't discover DNA. The truth is on the government record, you keep negating that but that is a fact, the stolen generation is a myth as is the attempted genocide, myths that are not supported by fact.. Official government record: https://www.findandconnect.gov.au/ "This website is one component of the Australian government’s Find & Connect services and projects." Stolen Generations "The Stolen Generations are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who, when they were children, were taken away from their families and communities as the result of past government policies. "Children were removed by governments, churches and welfare bodies to be brought up in institutions, fostered out or adopted by white families. "The removal of Aboriginal children took place from the early days of British colonisation in Australia. "It broke important cultural, spiritual and family ties and has left a lasting and intergenerational impact on the lives and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people." Rhino's been online for a while, and because he hasn't responded, therefore I assume that his whole world has come crashing down around him.

Indeed.

Official government records clearly confirm the truth about stolen generations.

I guess Rhino is just getting a little tired of being owned by me, night after night.

Can't really blame the guy.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 10^th, 2017 at 8:53pm:

Auggie wrote on May 10th, 2017 at 8:49pm: greggerypeccary wrote on May 10th, 2017 at 3:54pm: rhino wrote on May 10th, 2017 at 3:22pm: Auggie wrote on May 10th, 2017 at 2:55pm: rhino wrote on May 9th, 2017 at 10:08pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 9th, 2017 at 6:18pm: Indigenous children were forcibly transferred from one group to another group, without the permission of the childrens' parents.  didnt happen. The only children removed were done so out of regard for the childrens welfare, even then, full blood children were not removed. It was illegal to do so. The public record shows clearly the intent which was altruistic. There was no genocide or any attempt at such, the public record at the time shows this clearly. That was how it was sold, Rhino, as a for their benefit. Unofficially there was an intention to breed out the indigenous race. Just because the public record does not support it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It appears to me that you don't want to accept the truth as though doing so would challenge your fundamental views of the world, thereby creating dissonance between your thoughts and reality. It's like when a North Korean flees their country and realise that Kim Jong Un didn't discover DNA. The truth is on the government record, you keep negating that but that is a fact, the stolen generation is a myth as is the attempted genocide, myths that are not supported by fact.. Official government record: https://www.findandconnect.gov.au/ "This website is one component of the Australian government’s Find & Connect services and projects." Stolen Generations "The Stolen Generations are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who, when they were children, were taken away from their families and communities as the result of past government policies. "Children were removed by governments, churches and welfare bodies to be brought up in institutions, fostered out or adopted by white families. "The removal of Aboriginal children took place from the early days of British colonisation in Australia. "It broke important cultural, spiritual and family ties and has left a lasting and intergenerational impact on the lives and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people." Rhino's been online for a while, and because he hasn't responded, therefore I assume that his whole world has come crashing down around him. Indeed. Official government records clearly confirm the truth about stolen generations. I guess Rhino is just getting a little tired of being owned by me, night after night. Can't really blame the guy.

I'm sure he's experiencing a moment of catharsis.

The goriest moment in the history of our proud nation was
American revolutionary War when we got rid of colonial British rule
and became undisputed world power.

http://www.sligoheritage.com/images/Revolutnary%20War.jpg


If Australia was liberated from British colonial rule, as America was, it would become a world power as America is.
Instead Australia for ever has remained insignificant British colony.
I don't think that the great Australian people deserve such undignified miserable destiny. I really feel sorry for you Aussies .
You even don't have own head of state and own flag.
I can't imagine that we have a foreign Monarch as our head of state???
it would be considered as humiliating occupation as well as an insult
to American dignity and democracy.

Robert Hughes great Australian intellectual and writer, who for more than 50 years lived in exile in USA wrote in his book 'Australia beyond the fatal shore''

''Australia is specially huge, culturally tiny and politically insignificant''

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 7:49pm:

Yes I realise they are not the same. That is why we have two different words for them. Do you think Australia is a democracy?

You tell me.
Is it democracy when non democratically elected monarch has constitutional right to dismiss democratically elected prime minister and democratically elected parliament
as it happened to Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam in 1974???.

Problem is not what people are problem is what people think they are.

rhino wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 10:17pm:

capitosinora wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 11:49am: By the way the genocide on Australian aborigines was specifically done by British and not by Europeans.[/b] You are misinformed, there was no Aboriginal genocide nor was there any attempt to do so.

That's what Aussie's master Pom says.
Goodness me this becomes entertaining.

;D ;D ;D

Auggie wrote on May 9^th, 2017 at 8:16pm:

The genocide of the indigenous peoples of Australia occurred under Australian control, mainly after Federation, not under the hands of the British. We often like to shift the blame to Britain, but we're actually the ones to blame. It was the Commonwealth/States which treated the indigenous peoples poorly, not the British.

This is a ludicrous statement. The genocide on Australian Aborigines was manly done by British during  British monarch Queen Victoria and continued to present days during Australian head of state British queen Elisabeth II.

capitosinora wrote on May 13^th, 2017 at 10:01am:

The goriest moment in the history of our proud nation was American revolutionary War when we got rid of colonial British rule and became undisputed world power. http://www.sligoheritage.com/images/Revolutnary%20War.jpg If Australia was liberated from British colonial rule, as America was, it would become a world power as America is. Instead Australia for ever has remained insignificant British colony. I don't think that the great Australian people deserve such undignified miserable destiny. I really feel sorry for you Aussies . You even don't have own head of state and own flag. I can't imagine that we have a foreign Monarch as our head of state??? it would be considered as humiliating occupation as well as an insult to American dignity and democracy. Robert Hughes great Australian intellectual and writer, who for more than 50 years lived in exile in USA wrote in his book 'Australia beyond the fatal shore'' ''Australia is specially huge, culturally tiny and politically insignificant''

With a fraction of the population?

freediver wrote on May 13^th, 2017 at 10:50am:

capitosinora wrote on May 13th, 2017 at 10:01am: The goriest moment in the history of our proud nation was American revolutionary War when we got rid of colonial British rule and became undisputed world power. https://healthy007.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Laughing-Hard-Meme-07.jpg If Australia was liberated from British colonial rule, as America was, it would become a world power as America is. Instead Australia for ever has remained insignificant British colony. I don't think that the great Australian people deserve such undignified miserable destiny. I really feel sorry for you Aussies . You even don't have own head of state and own flag. I can't imagine that we have a foreign Monarch as our head of state??? it would be considered as humiliating occupation as well as an insult to American dignity and democracy. Robert Hughes great Australian intellectual and writer, who for more than 50 years lived in exile in USA wrote in his book 'Australia beyond the fatal shore'' ''Australia is specially huge, culturally tiny and politically insignificant'' With a fraction of the population?

https://healthy007.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Laughing-Hard-Meme-07.jpg

So you honestly think we could be a superpower with only 20 million people if only we had a directly elected president?

Or do you think corn would suddenly sprout in the desert?

freediver wrote on May 13^th, 2017 at 7:23pm:

So you honestly think we could be a superpower with only 20 million people if only we had a directly elected president? Or do you think corn would suddenly sprout in the desert?

If you liberated country from British colonial rule you would be able to develop own cultural and national identity, as America did, and become a sovereign powerfull country instead insignificant British colony.

capitosinora wrote on May 13^th, 2017 at 7:50pm:

freediver wrote on May 13th, 2017 at 7:23pm: So you honestly think we could be a superpower with only 20 million people if only we had a directly elected president? Or do you think corn would suddenly sprout in the desert? If you liberated country from British colonial rule you would be able to develop own cultural and national identity, as America did, and become a sovereign powerfull country instead insignificant British colony.

Australia ruled by Britain ???  ;D ;D ;D ;D You have no idea. Britain doesn't have any say in any Australian matters you muppet. Your country has more say in Australia than anybody else. You need to do some research.

capitosinora wrote on May 13^th, 2017 at 7:50pm:

freediver wrote on May 13th, 2017 at 7:23pm: So you honestly think we could be a superpower with only 20 million people if only we had a directly elected president? Or do you think corn would suddenly sprout in the desert? If you liberated country from British colonial rule you would be able to develop own cultural and national identity, as America did, and become a sovereign powerfull country instead insignificant British colony.

And we would become a world power, like America is?

Mr Hammer wrote on May 13^th, 2017 at 7:55pm:

capitosinora wrote on May 13th, 2017 at 7:50pm: freediver wrote on May 13th, 2017 at 7:23pm: So you honestly think we could be a superpower with only 20 million people if only we had a directly elected president? Or do you think corn would suddenly sprout in the desert? If you liberated country from British colonial rule you would be able to develop own cultural and national identity, as America did, and become a sovereign powerful country instead insignificant British colony. Australia ruled by Britain ???  ;D ;D ;D ;D You have no idea. Britain doesn't have any say in any Australian matters you muppet. Your country has more say in Australia than anybody else. You need to do some research.

https://healthy007.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Laughing-Hard-Meme-07.jpg

It is not problem what people are the problem is what people think they are.

Stop kidding yourself.
British queen is your head of state who has constitutional right to dismiss democratically elected Australian prime minister and parliament what actually happened to Gough Whitlam in 1974.

I can't imagine that we in USA have a foreign Monarch as our head of state???
it would be considered as humiliating occupation as well as an insult
to American dignity and democracy.
How many Pome bots are on this forum, definitely you are one of them?, is there any real Aussie patriot left in your country?. What a shame.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThljZBvUocw

freediver wrote on May 13^th, 2017 at 10:09pm:

capitosinora wrote on May 13th, 2017 at 7:50pm: freediver wrote on May 13th, 2017 at 7:23pm: So you honestly think we could be a superpower with only 20 million people if only we had a directly elected president? Or do you think corn would suddenly sprout in the desert? If you liberated country from British colonial rule you would be able to develop own cultural and national identity, as America did, and become a sovereign powerfull country instead insignificant British colony. And we would become a world power, like America is?

Probably why not, if we manage why not you as well. Don't underestimate yourself because of inferiority complex imposed on you by British masters.
You are not British convicts any more.

capitosinora wrote on May 14^th, 2017 at 12:07pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on May 13th, 2017 at 7:55pm: capitosinora wrote on May 13th, 2017 at 7:50pm: freediver wrote on May 13th, 2017 at 7:23pm: So you honestly think we could be a superpower with only 20 million people if only we had a directly elected president? Or do you think corn would suddenly sprout in the desert? If you liberated country from British colonial rule you would be able to develop own cultural and national identity, as America did, and become a sovereign powerful country instead insignificant British colony. Australia ruled by Britain ???  ;D ;D ;D ;D You have no idea. Britain doesn't have any say in any Australian matters you muppet. Your country has more say in Australia than anybody else. You need to do some research. It is not problem what people are the problem is what people think they are. Stop kidding yourself. British queen is your head of state who has constitutional right to dismiss democratically elected Australian prime minister and parliament what actually happened to Gough Whitlam in 1974. I can't imagine that we in USA have a foreign Monarch as our head of state??? it would be considered as humiliating occupation as well as an insult to American dignity and democracy. How many Pome bots are on this forum, definitely you are one of them?, is there any real Aussie patriot left in your country?. What a shame. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThljZBvUocw

The queen is purely traditional. It's been amended. The queen cannot sack an Australian elected prime minister. She has no power at all in Australia. Your government has plenty of power in Australia actually. Your country is an imperialist meddler who has it's fingers in the affairs of many countries, including Australia. Just like how the United Kingdom once did.

capitosinora wrote on May 14^th, 2017 at 12:23pm:

freediver wrote on May 13th, 2017 at 10:09pm: capitosinora wrote on May 13th, 2017 at 7:50pm: freediver wrote on May 13th, 2017 at 7:23pm: So you honestly think we could be a superpower with only 20 million people if only we had a directly elected president? Or do you think corn would suddenly sprout in the desert? If you liberated country from British colonial rule you would be able to develop own cultural and national identity, as America did, and become a sovereign powerfull country instead insignificant British colony. And we would become a world power, like America is? Probably why not, if we manage why not you as well. Don't underestimate yourself because of inferiority complex imposed on you by British masters. You are not British convicts any more.

That's reassuring. I thought you were serious there for a bit.


capitosinora wrote on May 13^th, 2017 at 10:01am:

[b]If Australia was liberated from British colonial rule, as America was, it would become a world power as America is.

Still, it is good to hear you are managing. That is probably the best the Americans can hope for, given the deep flaws in their democracy.

What a laugh!  ;D

The British 'Political' System (Empire is a Military term that relates to 'Emperors', not Presidents, Prime Ministers or even those Masters of Ceremony - Kings)...

...sure did get it right in some parts of the world, but stuffed up in others.

SOUTH AFRICA: The BOERS were indeed 'intergrating' with the southern African tribes, that still hadn't reached the tip of the continent after 80,000 years. They were learning much farming and guerrilla aspects of culture from the Xhosian & Hottentot tribes.
Hence why the Boers became a 'farm' orientated sub-Dutch culture.
Then the British turned up and wanting a 'Southern Strategic Outpost' - began to oust the Boers of any empowerment.
The Boers stood up against the British bully - but the British bought the 'Coloureds' first with money and then the 'Blacks' against the Boers. Thus the Boers, who also had Black allies - were up against it.
In essence - it was POLITICS, brought by the British, that RUINED SOUTH AFRICA.
Mandela (token Black Man for USA) knew this and understood that Sport could do more for the nation than the lost cause of Politics.
All is not lost in African Politics though. Lets just say, its best handled by the Women, rather than the men.

ZIMBABWE: Yep - the British 'stole' the land by default and MUGABE took it back. Anyone on Mugabe's side, gets looked after, but anyone on the British side gets to starve because we don't see the British doing anything to feed them with their 'sanctions'. Talk about a sore loser.


BRITAIN is POLITICS.
Military is its 2nd course of action.

BRITAINS greatest achievement is the USA
...its worse will come to be Australia.

Jasin wrote on May 14^th, 2017 at 6:34pm:

What a laugh!  ;D The British 'Political' System (Empire is a Military term that relates to 'Emperors', not Presidents, Prime Ministers or even those Masters of Ceremony - Kings)... ...sure did get it right in some parts of the world, but stuffed up in others. SOUTH AFRICA: The BOERS were indeed 'intergrating' with the southern African tribes, that still hadn't reached the tip of the continent after 80,000 years. They were learning much farming and guerrilla aspects of culture from the Xhosian & Hottentot tribes. Hence why the Boers became a 'farm' orientated sub-Dutch culture. Then the British turned up and wanting a 'Southern Strategic Outpost' - began to oust the Boers of any empowerment. The Boers stood up against the British bully - but the British bought the 'Coloureds' first with money and then the 'Blacks' against the Boers. Thus the Boers, who also had Black allies - were up against it. In essence - it was POLITICS, brought by the British, that RUINED SOUTH AFRICA. Mandela (token Black Man for USA) knew this and understood that Sport could do more for the nation than the lost cause of Politics. All is not lost in African Politics though. Lets just say, its best handled by the Women, rather than the men. ZIMBABWE: Yep - the British 'stole' the land by default and MUGABE took it back. Anyone on Mugabe's side, gets looked after, but anyone on the British side gets to starve because we don't see the British doing anything to feed them with their 'sanctions'. Talk about a sore loser. BRITAIN is POLITICS. Military is its 2nd course of action. BRITAINS greatest achievement is the USA ...its worse will come to be Australia.

...its worse will come to be Australia......


why do you say that?

Why one earth would we want to become like the US?

rhino wrote on May 14^th, 2017 at 6:40pm:

Why one earth would we want to become like the US?

For example to get out of your colonial cultural misery.
The difference between American and Australian yogurt is that Australian doesn't have culture.

capitosinora wrote on May 14^th, 2017 at 7:58pm:

rhino wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 6:40pm: Why one earth would we want to become like the US? For example to get out of your colonial cultural misery. The difference between American and Australian yogurt is that Australian doesn't have culture.

You certainly have culture. A gun culture.

Politics in Australia will be crucified on the Southern Cross,
to die for the sins of the USA.

...that's why  ;)