Or if for example you are India, you have had all your valuables stolen from you.....by the British, yes?

miketrees wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 5:45pm:


Really?  Got any proof?  A link?  Or is that just your somehow informed opinion?

Aussie wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 5:47pm:


Where's your link?

Aussie wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 5:04pm:


Did England steal all of India's toilets?

Yuck

Aussie wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 6:15pm:


The royal throne?

Gnads wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 6:20pm:


Do a simple Google Gonads. As for Adani....you and I need that to go ahead....more so you, than me.

Gnads wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 5:55pm:



I thought that [traditionally] many Indians were in the textile and clothing trade ?

AiA wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 9:55pm:


Astounding revelation.

Aussie, prior to the arrival of the British, for how much of India's history did they have a functioning democracy?

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 10:01pm:


None, to my knowledge.  It seems they were happy little vegemites doing what happy little Indian vegemites did way back then including pissing Alexander off back from whence he came.

Aussie wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 10:06pm:

Oh, to have a happy little caste system once again, burning wives, living in happy little feudal times. The British dragged them into modernity and they, like the abos, will never forgive them.

But if you wanted to LEAVE  them in their happy little backward state, they would scream blue murder, racism, discrimination.

With the backward races, no good deed will ever go unresented.

But... but... but ... but.. Aussie!  You wouldn't be here without the Brits taking over India....  having viewed the alternatives, you arrived at the sound decision that you would be better off here in a British founded mostly White nation - albeit one plagued by 3% Niqqers who demand ownership and rent from everyone else.

Had the British never ruled over "India" other European powers certainly would have had a stronger foothold on the subcontinent ... and today "India" would be a mix of various nation-states much like Europe is ...

Auggie wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 4:58pm:

Gordon wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 10:25pm:


Or Callan Park.

Quote:


Its not "their" war on whitie. Its those neurotic new-age whities, and their distorted moralising, which makes war on themselves. Most of these Leftist do-gooders think African slavery began and ended the Americas. Such revisionist history never takes into account that the Muzlims carried on African slavery long before and long after, emancipation in the Americas.

And so these candle sniffing new age leftists wring their hands and wail about their inherited guilt.

Not this little black duck. (And if you are so unfamiliar with history, its a shooting gallery metaphor)

it_is_the_light wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 10:54pm:


A link to an Afro- American specific publication.

A publication that portrays Winnie Mandela as a hero instead of the murdering(her own people) corrupt, terror supporting person she was.

Credibility zero.

issuevoter wrote on Apr 12^th, 2018 at 8:46am:



Cet petit canard noir?  Unfamiliar with 'history'?  No relevance whatsoever - I merely point out that Kangaroo Kaffirs at 3% of the population should beware that they get not what they wish for, and I've pointed out that a paltry 100 turned out to be 'radical' at CommGames Inc, but thousands stayed home and watched.  Jeez - some even competed.....

If the candle sniffers are the cause of the war - some Kaffirs are climbing on board when they can smell dollars in it.... and that's what it's all about pure and simple.

At the moment they are like the 'feminists' (another selfish, self-centred, grasping group), playing the equivalent of the Pussy Card to carry on like loonies at full moon and receiving no just reward for violent and threatening and damaging actions and demands.  That will pass one day and a government of the people will rise and tell them what their place is - the same as everyone else's - earn it or lose it, and the nation can no longer afford you since the government is running a lean and mean ship on its (gasps) CORE duties instead of playing kindergarten teacher handing out lollies.

I'll be quite content to watch some KKs playing NRL tonight and applauding good performance - don't confuse me with the candle sniffers... if there are seven circles of hell to go through in this lifetime or multiple lifetimes (as some would suggest is the case), I've seen five or six... and still ride the crest of the wave in terms of humanity, decency, and thought, and I call a spade a spade ... multiple circles of hell reduce a person to their true being....

Aussie wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 5:04pm:


No one is saying that the British Empire was perfect. What this video is arguing and what other people have argued is that, overall on balance, the British Empire was a force for good.

Aussie wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 4:34pm:


The video might not have explicitly stated that, but I don't believe that the historian in question would argue that it was perfect.

Wherever the British established a colony they spread the idea of freedom. Indians were considered British subjects and could travel anywhere throughout the Empire. In fact, when Gandhi was in South Africa and was required to show an ID card because of his race, he said: "I'm a British subject, and I have rights".

In fact, when Australia introduced the White Australia Policy, Britain vehemently opposed it, because that meant that British subjects in Indian and other  non-white colonies were prevented from travelling to British soil (Australia).

Their treatment of the indigenous peoples and the Indians was brutal and evil (in the case of the latter less so), and I don't defend those actions. Indigenous peoples everywhere have suffered at the hands of European colonial powers, so the British were no worse than any other.

If you look at India, after their independence, why did they adopt the British system of government?? They could've easily adopted an American system; they had more reason to abandon the Westminster system than the Americans did; but they didn't. They still retained the British institutions. Why? Because many of them recognize that the British did bring positive change to the continent. What they wanted was self-governance as an equal member under the British Empire.

Aussie wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 4:34pm:


The East India Company may have been a Brit company but I'm sure anyone could have shares. The EIC shows what corporations are capable of unchecked, private armies, private war, overseeing famine to justify profits. The Brit gov intervened after the Sepoy Uprising and took over control from the EIC. The EIC was not the British Empire, it was a private corporation. India was governed far better after 1858 and given it's independence 90 years later under the rule of the crown.

Aussie wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 6:45pm:


It was not a govt institution. Having the crown's approval does not remove it's private ownership.

Setanta wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 6:48pm:


It was a private company "incorporated" by royal charter, just as today corporations are given charter by laws of the government of states they begin it.. The private company was given "body" by royal charter.

Aussie wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 7:06pm:


To trade. I'm not saying the Brit govt or crown were blameless but it was letting a private entity do as it was supposed to do, it was the private merchants that started it and ran it. The Brit govt was also the one that stopped it and took over when they saw it was turning to shyte.

I do blame the Brits for their silly carving up what was India under their control into India , East and West Pakistan.

Auggie wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 7:37pm:


This is all I found there:

Quote:


I'd hardly call that 'vehement opposition.'  Further, it was useless opposition and the WAP existed.

I said ~ The video presents a position of flawless virtue.

That'd be my imagination, Effendi.

freediver wrote on Apr 14^th, 2018 at 9:34am:


Yes.  Do you?

freediver wrote on Apr 14^th, 2018 at 9:41am:


I am not going to watch it again.  If you could be arsed and watched it, you'd see for yourself.

Aussie wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 7:47pm:


My mistake. The white Australia policy ran contrary to general conception of equality that had been the principle of the British empire.

Auggie wrote on Apr 14^th, 2018 at 9:09pm:


Yes.....they spread suppression until they had control,  or lost control, and then....when time passed, the Rule of Law was adopted in most of the former Colonies.  But, their initial intent was domination, colonisation, and even genocide of anyone who stood in their way.  For example, the Maoris fought back, beat them, and "Waitangi" was created.

They were booted out of India, but wise heads there saw that a viable infrastructure had been put in place.

Same in Kenya, and probably other places I have no personal familiarity with.  They left Kenya when Kenyata the Mao Moa 'terrorists' got uppity.  Many Indian Families left Kenya and fled to India, leaving a viable infrastructure behind.  Those Indians are the initial immigrants into England that people like Herbert are pissed off about.

Aussie wrote on Apr 14^th, 2018 at 9:25pm:


There is an error in that.  No, I meant they fled to the UK....like TIB's Old Man did with his Wife and many kids in tow.

Aussie wrote on Apr 14^th, 2018 at 9:54pm:


So that's all it takes to set up a democracy - for people to think it's a good idea?

Why do you leave out liberty?

Aussie wrote on Apr 14^th, 2018 at 10:01pm:


I'm talking about having liberty, not about having liberty written down. Not the same thing Aussie.

Why (other than because they think it's a good idea, duh) do you think institutions like the rule of law, democracy, personal liberty etc were adopted in so many former British colonies Aussie?

Aussie wrote on Apr 14^th, 2018 at 10:01pm:


Aussie, the reason why we don’t have a US style bill of rights is because it is not the British tradition. Our rights are inalienable and don’t need to be enshrined in any constitution. They are protected by the principle of ‘parliamentary soverienty’ (look it up).

If you compare the American experience of protecting civil rights with the British experience, you’ll find that the latter has had a much better track record than the former, despite the former having a constitution and a Supreme Court to arbitrate over it.

Auggie wrote on Apr 14^th, 2018 at 10:19pm:


I think the benifits left by British colonisation may be called an unintended consequence.

Quote:


I'll accept most of that.  But....this Liberty/Freedom thing in Australia is questionable.

What are the 'inalienable rights' you say Australians have?

Quote:


Auggie.

Can you list these alleged inalienable rights Australians have?

Dunno why people just don't read.  Here:

Quote:

freediver wrote on Apr 14^th, 2018 at 9:30pm:


Good question, FD. And why do you think these institutions were adopted in so many former French, Spanish and Portuguese colonies, Aussie?

Setanta wrote on Apr 14^th, 2018 at 11:04pm:


With which statement? That rights are inalienable? Or that they don't need to be enshrined in any constitution?

Not one of them are regarded as inalienable in this Country.  The ONLY rights we have arise either from the Constitution or by Statute.

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 9:24pm:


Rubbish.  The only rights I have are those given to me by the Constitution, Statute or common law.  None of them are regarded as inalienable in Australia.

Aussie wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 9:21pm:


Rights don't only exist in laws and statutes, they are also intangible ideas that transcend law or statutes. It's merely a matter of being accepted among our society - like a convention of sort. It is understood and enshrined in the spirit of the people.

Aussie wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 9:28pm:


They are recognised by law. That is not the same thing as how you got them. Which is why you are struggling so hard to disagree with me.

Rights don't arise from a piece of paper Aussie. They arise from your willingness to defend them.

Why (other than because they think it's a good idea, duh) do you think institutions like the rule of law, democracy, personal liberty etc were adopted in so many former British colonies Aussie?

Quote:


Any law that can be written - statutory, common, constitutional, can also be unwritten the same way. Or just ignored, like the right to bear arms.

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 9:34pm:


Waiting....for an edit.....before I respond. 

AiA wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 9:40pm:


Here here.

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 9:43pm:


Oh....what is the prescribed waiting time?  Have you finished now, or must I wait some more to talk about privacy, for example?

AiA wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 9:46pm:


I'm unaware of such theories. Care to elaborate?

In any case, it was the British who spread them and who established them overseas. Empires often pass on the batton: Rome to Britain, for example.

Aussie wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 9:45pm:


If it bothers you so much, wait. If you can get over it, then respond. I will repost if I think you missed something important.

No you won't. You will respond before you have put any thought into what you are going to say.

I don't care. You'll get over it.

Is it safe for Aussie to respond yet?

Aussie wrote on Apr 17^th, 2018 at 12:40pm:


And where did the American context come from? That's right: the British.

Second, I suggest you read the US Supreme Court case 'Dred Scott vs. Sanford' and tell me if the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the Supreme Court were enough to prevent Scott's rights from being taken away.

The interesting part is that, if you look at both the American and British traditions, the latter has had a much better record in protecting the rights and liberties of its peoples than the former, despite the former having an enshrined Bill of Rights and a Court of Review. For e.g. the British were able to abolish slavery with an Act of Parliament, whereas the Supreme Court and the Constitution weren't able to protect the rights of blacks, even after slavery.

Rhino wrote on Apr 17^th, 2018 at 12:46pm:


Which part of this statement is incorrect Guru?

Quote: