• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Can we be proud of the British Empire?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jul 15, 2015
32
0
0
Then surely you should be pissed at the French? Haiti as far as I'm aware was a Spanish and then French colony?

To things.

1. Also said africans routes.

2. Britain was also involved in the decontruction of the country and also had an attack force their that was pushed back. Also it and the U.S. complicated things further for dozens of years after the french decided to uh, cause some financial damage, which they have never and will not reverse or apologize for, and of course spain for the whole race class by how dark your skin is nonsense.
 
Jul 15, 2015
32
0
0
One of the most dangerous comments you can ever make.

History should never be forgotten, it should be cast in stone, especially the parts that show humanity at their worst. If we don't learn from history then how do we prevent the self same mistakes from happening again in the future?

I'm sorry that you feel that way about this topic, and I'm guessing it's a reaction to colonialism is general rather than as a specific, as Britain wasn't directly involved in Haiti as I recall.

They were involved, directly and indirectly, just different ways. Also it has nothing to do with removing history, but people don't teach that kind of history about the old british empire, and they almost glorify it, so already it's a mess, if anything either forget it or bring the truth out.

Also as a person who has lived in Afirca, and have family coming from their of course, it's even more devastating over there. The story are horrible making Hitler look like a pantsy.
 

ShinMaruku

Member
Jun 22, 2013
14,736
0
505
You forgot the British Empires's CRUSHING of the cult of the Thug. I mean they bodied them. You can be proud of any empire, sure they did some horrible things but you have people saying the US is the greatest country in the world, mind you how the police treat minorities, the gross seperation of the classes, a government of mostly idiots.
 

MrChom

Member
Jan 9, 2013
1,634
0
340
They were involved, directly and indirectly, just different ways. Also it has nothing to do with removing history, but people don't teach that kind of history about the old british empire, and they almost glorify it, so already it's a mess, if anything either forget it or bring the truth out.

Also as a person who has lived in Afirca, and have family coming from their of course, it's even more devastating over there. The story are horrible making Hitler look like a pantsy.

The likelihood is that with current British teaching we would get the bad side.

We're taught the industrial revolution, and one of the key points there is the Peterloo Massacre where yeoman cavalry charges into a peaceful demonstration sabres out, and aiming to maim. We're taught WW1 from the point of view of the millions of lives wasted on Ypres and the Somme. Go through most segments of teaching in British schools and there's a running theme of inadequacy, stupidity, brutality, and elitism drawn face first against a wider populace.

The problem remains at the moment, however that the Empire isn't taught at all. Not its good, and not its bad and that gives average British people very little context in which to frame discussions like this.
 
Jul 15, 2015
32
0
0
The problem remains at the moment, however that the Empire isn't taught at all. Not its good, and not its bad and that gives average British people very little context in which to frame discussions like this.

So if you agree with me why did you post the paragraph before in this post?
 

MetalSlug

Member
May 11, 2014
1,349
168
450
Scotland
As a blonde-haired blue-eyed German, I am incredibly proud of my people and the great strides we have made throughout history, particularly the insane rebound after WWI. What other country could go from being broke as hell to taking on the entire western world in twenty years? And the technological advances we made, the medical advances (e.g. hypothermia treatment), the great minds we produced (Einstein is German) - nothing can compare. I'm so proud to be able to raise my family in this great nation with its awe-inspiring history full of incredible people. We stand tall amongst giants!

I'd say Scotland is able to compete with that :p
Scottish inventions and discoveries
 

Toxi

Banned
May 29, 2013
41,541
1
0
I have it rubbed in my face by an American friend how America 'owns' the British, and often get reminded of the American Revolution and, of course, how they dumped all our beloved tea in the harbour.
LOL

America's pride over the Revolution of all things baffles me.
 

Walpurgis

Banned
Mar 12, 2015
8,911
0
0
I have it rubbed in my face by an American friend how America 'owns' the British, and often get reminded of the American Revolution and, of course, how they dumped all our beloved tea in the harbour.

As thanks, I remind how America begged us for help in Iraq and that without us, they wouldn't have 1D. Which I also apologise for.

You should remind your American friend that America actually is British. Sure they monkeyed with their measuring systems and tried to distance themselves but they didn't suddenly stop being British after the civil war. The real Americans were murdered and oppressed by these British and continued to be long after the civil war.
 

poppabk

Member
Jan 21, 2008
12,552
1,473
1,350
USA
This is rather disturbing - I bet most of those Brits that said they are proud of it, dont know they invented concentration camps (and not the Germans) and that the empire killed waaaay more people than Hitler ever did. Then again, they might just claim thats all lies, and who can blame them if all they learn in school is how good the empire was.
The British did not invent holding large numbers of people without trial. They may have invented the term concentration camp if that's what our mean, but the worst part of Nazi concentration camps wasnt the internment but the massive deliberate genocide.
Do you have a citation for the British Empire killing way more people than Hitler?
 

Walpurgis

Banned
Mar 12, 2015
8,911
0
0
The British did not invent holding large numbers of people without trial. They may have invented the term concentration camp if that's what our mean, but the worst part of Nazi concentration camps wasnt the internment but the massive deliberate genocide.
Do you have a citation for the British Empire killing way more people than Hitler?

I don't have any numbers but Hitler was only killing people for a few years. The British Empire had hundreds. It's an absolute certainty that the British killed more.
 

whatsinaname

Member
Feb 13, 2009
11,854
0
1,110
The British did not invent holding large numbers of people without trial. They may have invented the term concentration camp if that's what our mean, but the worst part of Nazi concentration camps wasnt the internment but the massive deliberate genocide.
Do you have a citation for the British Empire killing way more people than Hitler?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/dec/09/paulharris.theobserver

10% of the Boers died in 1 year. But the count is way smaller than Hitler's, so it doesn't count.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-12997138

Tens of thousands died in Kenyan camps too. Again, I guess it doesn't count because the numbers don't match Hitler's.
 

SkyOdin

Member
Nov 20, 2011
5,241
0
0
Do you have a citation for the British Empire killing way more people than Hitler?

Well, the Great Famine of 1876-78 killed 5.5 million people in India. The 1782-83 Chalisa famine killed up to 11 million people. These are probably among the worst, but there were 15 major famines in India during British rule, that usually each killed at least a million people. These famines were in large part due to British policies in India: emphasizing export of agricultural products out of India over actually feeding the populace, not investing in agricultural development, not giving any democratic control to the Indian people over their own economy, and in some cases officials just not doing anything about famines. Thus, they produced some of the deadliest famines in human history, despite the fact that there was sufficient food present to feed these people.

Basically, the entire modus operandi of the British was to enrich Britain at the expense of the colonies. Any human cost was considered acceptable if Britain made money off of it. The British made some changes after about two hundred years of this to alleviate the problem, but it really took the modern, independent Indian government to actually take the proper steps to fix the underlying issues of these famines.

So, saying that Britain brought infrastructure to India is a complete lie. They didn't properly invest in infrastructure at all. Any investments they made were for the purpose to increasing opium production so they could sell it to China and make British aristocrats wealthy. All the while, a massive human cost added up in India that really does surpass some of Nazi Germany's worst crimes. And this was just one region of British control.
 

PeskyToaster

Member
Dec 5, 2012
10,992
0
605
Texas, USA
I'm playing Empire Total War as the French and those damn Brits keep on declaring war on me and raiding my shipping lanes. Too bad I've almost completely absorbed the 13 colonies into my new French Empire to fund my war against Spain. Vive la France, vive la America.

Despite the massive losses incurred on both sides, I can see why people like to build empires. It's kinda fun.
 

espher

Member
Jul 1, 2012
3,603
0
0
See, this is the kind of shit I'm talking about. You think Genghis Khan let Mesopotamia go because the Turks asked nicely? That's not how empires work!

Look, we rode it out 'til the end, and when the Empire was pretty much done, we were like "listen Colony Dad, it's really cold here in the winter and not that great in the summer, and there are French people here, and also America is still here, so what's say you just let us manage ourselves and we'll give a little tip of the cap to the King and/or Queen Mum every so often".

I mean at that point they were already depressed and drinking at the pub. No sense adding insult to injury by being rude about it.
 

RustyNails

Member
Aug 31, 2009
47,611
0
1,115
The British did not invent holding large numbers of people without trial. They may have invented the term concentration camp if that's what our mean, but the worst part of Nazi concentration camps wasnt the internment but the massive deliberate genocide.
Do you have a citation for the British Empire killing way more people than Hitler?
Yes. British empire directly killed just as disproportionately as Nazis. Maybe not in the span of 5 years, but over centuries. Irish Potato Famine is a good place to start. British tax policies resulted in the potato famine. There is an incident that is recalled, where an Ottoman Empire sultan was moved by the plight of the farmers and attempted to deliver 3 ships full of supplies to Ireland, only to be taken be attacked by the British navy. The Sultan was then successfully able to deliver the ships through secrecy.
 
Jul 15, 2015
32
0
0
The British did not invent holding large numbers of people without trial. They may have invented the term concentration camp if that's what our mean, but the worst part of Nazi concentration camps wasnt the internment but the massive deliberate genocide.
Do you have a citation for the British Empire killing way more people than Hitler?

Heck the ashanti empire in Africa with around a 3 million population, which was large in those days, were almost entirely wiped out in dozens of years of war, before the British decided to back up a bit and make it a protectorate, and then giving it's freedom (and then later it fused with Gahna)

That's already a large chunk of what hitler killed, and that was one of the SLOWEST countries the killed a lot of people in.
 

Toxi

Banned
May 29, 2013
41,541
1
0
Reporting this.
Elkins reveals that the British detained not 80,000 Kikuyu, as the official histories maintain, but almost the entire population of one and a half million people, in camps and fortified villages. There, thousands were beaten to death or died from malnutrition, typhoid, tuberculosis and dysentery. In some camps almost all the children died.

The inmates were used as slave labour. Above the gates were edifying slogans, such as "Labour and freedom" and "He who helps himself will also be helped". Loudspeakers broadcast the national anthem and patriotic exhortations. People deemed to have disobeyed the rules were killed in front of the others. The survivors were forced to dig mass graves, which were quickly filled. Unless you have a strong stomach I advise you to skip the next paragraph.

Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.
It's amazing just how fucked up oppression can become.
 

RustyNails

Member
Aug 31, 2009
47,611
0
1,115
Well, the Great Famine of 1876-78 killed 5.5 million people in India. The 1782-83 Chalisa famine killed up to 11 million people. These are probably among the worst, but there were 15 major famines in India during British rule, that usually each killed at least a million people. These famines were in large part due to British policies in India: emphasizing export of agricultural products out of India over actually feeding the populace, not investing in agricultural development, not giving any democratic control to the Indian people over their own economy, and in some cases officials just not doing anything about famines. Thus, they produced some of the deadliest famines in human history, despite the fact that there was sufficient food present to feed these people.

Basically, the entire modus operandi of the British was to enrich Britain at the expense of the colonies. Any human cost was considered acceptable if Britain made money off of it. The British made some changes after about two hundred years of this to alleviate the problem, but it really took the modern, independent Indian government to actually take the proper steps to fix the underlying issues of these famines.

So, saying that Britain brought infrastructure to India is a complete lie. They didn't properly invest in infrastructure at all. Any investments they made were for the purpose to increasing opium production so they could sell it to China and make British aristocrats wealthy. All the while, a massive human cost added up in India that really does surpass some of Nazi Germany's worst crimes. And this was just one region of British control.
While we're on the subject of famines, dont forget the great Bengal Famine of 1770, for which British East India Company was responsible for. Millions of poor people died, as usual.
 

Chichikov

Member
Jul 26, 2006
24,751
0
0
While we're on the subject of famines, dont forget the great Bengal Famine of 1770, for which British East India Company was responsible for. Millions of poor people died, as usual.
Why do you got to focus on the negatives though?
Can't we talk about the 2/3rd of the population who didn't die of hunger?

Also, profits had doubled!

Run a country like a business, we should totally go back to that, it's such a great idea!
 

Stallion Dan

Member
Jun 8, 2014
8,970
2
460
UK
Can someone explain to me, or point me to a post where this has already been explained, why people are "proud" of something they had no influence over and no relation to other than randomly being born in a certain place?

They can be happy, in awe, amazed, glad, supportive... but proud? Doesn't that go against the meaning of the word itself?


OMG you are right, this is why nobody cheers at the olympics, afterall they really aren't doing anything themselves and have no influence on it.

LOL

America's pride over the Revolution of all things baffles me.

Especially with how pointless it was, because the reason for wanting the Brits gone (Taxes) popped back up only a few years later with an american face on it.

Only this time they couldn't fight back and had no allies to help.
 

SkyOdin

Member
Nov 20, 2011
5,241
0
0
Especially with how pointless it was, because the reason for wanting the Brits gone (Taxes) popped back up only a few years later with an american face on it.

Only this time they couldn't fight back and had no allies to help.
I hope you are being facetious, since that is obviously not what the American Revolution was about. The revolution wasn't about getting rid of taxes. The American people just wanted either a) enough autonomy from Britain to have control over their own economic policy, or b) the ability to elect officials to Parliament like their fellow citizens back home. Britain refused either, and continued to enforce a status quo that treated the American Colonists as second class citizens subject to the whims of the home country.

As such, the revolutionaries achieved their principal objective with the Revolution: sovereignty.

These are pretty much the same goals behind every other of the countless rebellions against British (and other European colonial power) rule.
 
Feb 22, 2009
8,052
3
0
I don't have any numbers but Hitler was only killing people for a few years. The British Empire had hundreds. It's an absolute certainty that the British killed more.

It depends on what you include. The most anti British propaganda holds Britain directly responsible for acts of nature so that sky rockets the figures.
 

poppabk

Member
Jan 21, 2008
12,552
1,473
1,350
USA
Heck the ashanti empire in Africa with around a 3 million population, which was large in those days, were almost entirely wiped out in dozens of years of war, before the British decided to back up a bit and make it a protectorate, and then giving it's freedom (and then later it fused with Gahna)

That's already a large chunk of what hitler killed, and that was one of the SLOWEST countries the killed a lot of people in.
You have a citation for this?
 

Stallion Dan

Member
Jun 8, 2014
8,970
2
460
UK
I hope you are being facetious, since that is obviously not what the American Revolution was about. The revolution wasn't about getting rid of taxes. The American people just wanted either a) enough autonomy from Britain to have control over their own economic policy, or b) the ability to elect officials to Parliament like their fellow citizens back home. Britain refused either, and continued to enforce a status quo that treated the American Colonists as second class citizens subject to the whims of the home country.

As such, the revolutionaries achieved their principal objective with the Revolution: sovereignty.

These are pretty much the same goals behind every other of the countless rebellions against British (and other European colonial power) rule.

Is this what they teach in US schools?

A US parliament with the ability to deny British parliament rules was offered and rejected. It was likely rejected because it didn't help with the type of taxes Britain was then using (it had long given up on the prior attempt to alter internal taxes) and were the reason for the rebellion.

The Whiskey Rebellion proves the people didn't get what they wanted, but they were vastly outgunned and unable to fight back by then.
 

SkyOdin

Member
Nov 20, 2011
5,241
0
0
Is this what they teach in US schools?

A US parliament with the ability to deny British parliament rules was offered and rejected. It was likely rejected because it didn't help with the type of taxes Britain was then using (it had long given up on the prior attempt to alter internal taxes) and were the reason for the rebellion.

The Whiskey Rebellion proves the people didn't get what they wanted, but they were vastly outgunned and unable to fight back by then.

The Whiskey Rebellion is the strangest thing to cite. First of all, the Whiskey Rebellion was mostly just a gang of 500 people who beat up some tax collectors. When the President marched his army out to deal with them, they scattered without any bloodshed. It wasn't really a full scale rebellion. It is better to describe it as a violent anti-tax protest than a serious rebellion.

However, what ultimately happened was that the underlying issues to the Whiskey Rebellion were resolved via legal means: elections. The Whiskey Tax was the result of the efforts of Alexander Hamilton and his Federalist party. When Thomas Jefferson and his new Republican Party (now known as the Democratic Party, yeah is it confusing) were elected into power, they repealed the unpopular Whiskey Tax. Ah, the wonders of a functioning democratic system!

The very fact that the citizens of the new United States were able to use their votes to bring about the repeal of an unpopular tax is proof that they had indeed gained something from the American Revolution. There was no similar process in place for Americans to have repealed the Stamp Act prior to the revolution. That is the whole point: Britain did not treat its colonies, even those populated by people of British decent, as equals.

It would have been different if Britain had allowed colonists (and not just American colonists) to vote for representatives in Parliament. And not just some subordinate colonial parliament, but THE Parliament. If people in India could have elected their own representatives to Parliament, those representatives could have increased the amount of infrastructure investment in India, potentially saving millions of lives who died due to famine. But Britain as a whole had no interest in letting colonists have a say in British politics. Instead, they saw the colonies, even the American ones, as nothing more than a means to enrich the British Isles.

Is it really such a surprise that these colonies in this situation eventually decided to rebel?
 

EMT0

Banned
Dec 7, 2012
5,009
0
0
The Whiskey Rebellion is the strangest thing to cite. First of all, the Whiskey Rebellion was mostly just a gang of 500 people who beat up some tax collectors. When the President marched his army out to deal with them, they scattered without any bloodshed. It wasn't really a full scale rebellion. It is better to describe it as a violent anti-tax protest than a serious rebellion.

However, what ultimately happened was that the underlying issues to the Whiskey Rebellion were resolved via legal means: elections. The Whiskey Tax was the result of the efforts of Alexander Hamilton and his Federalist party. When Thomas Jefferson and his new Republican Party (now known as the Democratic Party, yeah is it confusing) were elected into power, they repealed the unpopular Whiskey Tax. Ah, the wonders of a functioning democratic system!

The very fact that the citizens of the new United States were able to use their votes to bring about the repeal of an unpopular tax is proof that they had indeed gained something from the American Revolution. There was no similar process in place for Americans to have repealed the Stamp Act prior to the revolution. That is the whole point: Britain did not treat its colonies, even those populated by people of British decent, as equals.

It would have been different if Britain had allowed colonists (and not just American colonists) to vote for representatives in Parliament. And not just some subordinate colonial parliament, but THE Parliament. If people in India could have elected their own representatives to Parliament, those representatives could have increased the amount of infrastructure investment in India, potentially saving millions of lives who died due to famine. But Britain as a whole had no interest in letting colonists have a say in British politics. Instead, they saw the colonies, even the American ones, as nothing more than a means to enrich the British Isles.

Is it really such a surprise that these colonies in this situation eventually decided to rebel?

This sums it up well. The only reason the White Dominions actually ended up getting self-rule was because America had already demonstrated that it was inevitably going to be necessary. The British just missed the memo that this applies to all people and not just Anglo-Saxons.
 

Piecake

Member
Jun 11, 2004
16,157
0
0
This sums it up well. The only reason the White Dominions actually ended up getting self-rule was because America had already demonstrated that it was inevitably going to be necessary. The British just missed the memo that this applies to all people and not just Anglo-Saxons.

I think it was more of a result of the British not giving two shits about us because we were so unprofitable compared to the West Indies colonies, but then suddenly caring about the colonies when they got into massive debt thanks to wars. Our only role was to delivery food, wood and other non-luxury goods to the sugar producing colonies so that they could continue to only grow sweet sweet insanely profitable sugar and still survive. As a result, we were basically left alone to rule ourselves.

That changed after the 7 years war when Britain had a shit ton of debt, thought that the colonists should help pay for it since they benefited from it, and was pissed off at the 13 colonies for their rampant smuggling and trading with the enemy. As a result, they tried to increase oversight and increase taxes on the colonies. Well, after a 100-150 years of basically home rule and indifferent neglect by the British, we werent having any of that.
 

bomma_man

Member
Sep 24, 2011
7,124
0
0
justifying the means of the invasion of Iraq based on the (ostensible) goal of spreading democracy and ousting a brutal dictator is one thing, but justifying the means of empire on the completely unintended ends of "oh maybe this economic and legal infrastructure will be useful to the natives in 250 years when we're forced out" is another thing entirely.

At that point we may as well be proud of Hitler for bringing us the UN and EU and Ghengis Khan for opening trade between the east and west; causation is there certainly, but intention is no where to be found. I don't know how you can be proud of an Empire who's only good acts were completely incidental to its stated goals, and could only be identified years after the fact.
 

Stallion Dan

Member
Jun 8, 2014
8,970
2
460
UK
The Whiskey Rebellion is the strangest thing to cite. First of all, the Whiskey Rebellion was mostly just a gang of 500 people who beat up some tax collectors. When the President marched his army out to deal with them, they scattered without any bloodshed. It wasn't really a full scale rebellion. It is better to describe it as a violent anti-tax protest than a serious rebellion.

However, what ultimately happened was that the underlying issues to the Whiskey Rebellion were resolved via legal means: elections. The Whiskey Tax was the result of the efforts of Alexander Hamilton and his Federalist party. When Thomas Jefferson and his new Republican Party (now known as the Democratic Party, yeah is it confusing) were elected into power, they repealed the unpopular Whiskey Tax. Ah, the wonders of a functioning democratic system!

The very fact that the citizens of the new United States were able to use their votes to bring about the repeal of an unpopular tax is proof that they had indeed gained something from the American Revolution. There was no similar process in place for Americans to have repealed the Stamp Act prior to the revolution. That is the whole point: Britain did not treat its colonies, even those populated by people of British decent, as equals.

It would have been different if Britain had allowed colonists (and not just American colonists) to vote for representatives in Parliament. And not just some subordinate colonial parliament, but THE Parliament. If people in India could have elected their own representatives to Parliament, those representatives could have increased the amount of infrastructure investment in India, potentially saving millions of lives who died due to famine. But Britain as a whole had no interest in letting colonists have a say in British politics. Instead, they saw the colonies, even the American ones, as nothing more than a means to enrich the British Isles.

Is it really such a surprise that these colonies in this situation eventually decided to rebel?

The Whiskey rebellion is a fine example of the rebellion against the british repeating itself, it was a lot more than '500 people' who supported it, it was just crushed with overwhelming force from the government, something the British could not do against the US. But it was the exact same situation, with some groups believing in independance from the US.

Elections and democracy really did nothing to quell the rebellion, the law wasn't changed for many years after it had been ended by force.

Pre-revolution Colonists paid pretty much no tax aside from customs duties and such and despite receiving plenty of benefits from the British didn't like being taxed for it.

It's not like George Washington started a war with the French and the British had to fight it for seven years. Oh wait that is exactly what happened. That doesn't deserve any tax apparently though despite the debt it caused. It really wasn't about greed, at least not from the British, taxes in Britain were higher than anywhere. Stuff just has to be paid for somehow and since the US caused a lot of debt, they should have paid it.

And please don't claim it wasn't about taxes, colonists complained about internal taxes made by the British, that is where the 'No Taxation without Representation' phrase came from, but when the British used external taxes so nothing to do with representation, the colonists complained anyway. When they had a chance at representation and having their own powers, it was turned down.

They just didn't like taxes, so started a revolution and, get this, allied with the nation that Britain protected them from, which caused the debt and the need to tax them in the first place.

Then they still got taxed anyway, worse than ever before. The revolution just caused a slight delay.
 

AllenShrz

Member
Jul 8, 2010
2,344
0
0
... I genuinely believe from studying history that we had an overall positive effect on the world today.

It was also responsible for some fucking abhorrent acts though, and there are many areas of the world we just plain fucked up.

Tell that to the millions of people the Empire killed all over the world for hundred of years and many nations that still suffer from that.

What would you think if another more technologically advanced nation comes and rapes your country, stealing everything of value and killing your family and friends in the process, while you are forced to work as a slave for them?

But hey! In the long run this new country maybe will be good! Since all of the locals will be dead by then and the new civilization will be descendants of that more technologically advanced nation.


What a fucking twisted logic you got there.
 

pigeon

Banned
Feb 14, 2011
19,361
1
0
The Whiskey rebellion is a fine example of the rebellion against the british repeating itself, it was a lot more than '500 people' who supported it, it was just crushed with overwhelming force from the government, something the British could not do against the US. But it was the exact same situation, with some groups believing in independance from the US.

Elections and democracy really did nothing to quell the rebellion, the law wasn't changed for many years after it had been ended by force.

Pre-revolution Colonists paid pretty much no tax aside from customs duties and such and despite receiving plenty of benefits from the British didn't like being taxed for it.

It's not like George Washington started a war with the French and the British had to fight it for seven years. Oh wait that is exactly what happened. That doesn't deserve any tax apparently though despite the debt it caused. It really wasn't about greed, at least not from the British, taxes in Britain were higher than anywhere. Stuff just has to be paid for somehow and since the US caused a lot of debt, they should have paid it.

And please don't claim it wasn't about taxes, colonists complained about internal taxes made by the British, that is where the 'No Taxation without Representation' phrase came from, but when the British used external taxes so nothing to do with representation, the colonists complained anyway. When they had a chance at representation and having their own powers, it was turned down.

They just didn't like taxes, so started a revolution and, get this, allied with the nation that Britain protected them from, which caused the debt and the need to tax them in the first place.

Then they still got taxed anyway, worse than ever before. The revolution just caused a slight delay.

ITT we learn that two hundred years later the British are still salty about the American Revolution and how ungrateful it was of the colonials to take advantage of poor King George's little periods of confusion.
 

Piecake

Member
Jun 11, 2004
16,157
0
0
The Whiskey rebellion is a fine example of the rebellion against the british repeating itself, it was a lot more than '500 people' who supported it, it was just crushed with overwhelming force from the government, something the British could not do against the US. But it was the exact same situation, with some groups believing in independance from the US.

Elections and democracy really did nothing to quell the rebellion, the law wasn't changed for many years after it had been ended by force.

Pre-revolution Colonists paid pretty much no tax aside from customs duties and such and despite receiving plenty of benefits from the British didn't like being taxed for it.

It's not like George Washington started a war with the French and the British had to fight it for seven years. Oh wait that is exactly what happened. That doesn't deserve any tax apparently though despite the debt it caused. It really wasn't about greed, at least not from the British, taxes in Britain were higher than anywhere. Stuff just has to be paid for somehow and since the US caused a lot of debt, they should have paid it.

And please don't claim it wasn't about taxes, colonists complained about internal taxes made by the British, that is where the 'No Taxation without Representation' phrase came from, but when the British used external taxes so nothing to do with representation, the colonists complained anyway. When they had a chance at representation and having their own powers, it was turned down.

They just didn't like taxes, so started a revolution and, get this, allied with the nation that Britain protected them from, which caused the debt and the need to tax them in the first place.

Then they still got taxed anyway, worse than ever before. The revolution just caused a slight delay.

You should read The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. In that Book, Bernard Bailyn completely dismantles Charles Beard's argument, which - in some form - you seem to be using, that economic self-interest was the defining factor and reason for the American revolution and constitution.

After reading it, you'll understand why America rejected British's offer in 1778. That offer would have worked before the War, but during? After we declared independence? Especially after Saratoga? Well, it was too late then.
 

jerry1594

Member
Jul 13, 2012
10,059
0
0
img1.wikia.nocookie.net
You should remind your American friend that America actually is British. Sure they monkeyed with their measuring systems and tried to distance themselves but they didn't suddenly stop being British after the civil war. The real Americans were murdered and oppressed by these British and continued to be long after the civil war.
Most white americans are probably german and irish. Though here in chicago there's a big polish and lithuanian population.
 
Oct 8, 2009
16,989
4
0
Not many of you have mentioned the Opium wars and the boxer rebellion, which is fascinating to me. I've heard recently, that the British hostility was aimed at defending their honor, as the Chinese had no need to trade their Opium with the British.

That's crazy! That the British wanted to legalize Opium and distribute the same way they did sugar, tea, cocoa and other goods. I wonder if Opium could have been a household drug today if things had been differently.
 

Damerman

Member
Jun 15, 2013
6,239
22
390
New Jersey
Not many of you have mentioned the Opium wars and the boxer rebellion, which is fascinating to me. I've heard recently, that the British hostility was aimed at defending their honor, as the Chinese had no need to trade their Opium with the British.

That's crazy! That the British wanted to legalize Opium and distribute the same way they did sugar, tea, cocoa and other goods. I wonder if Opium could have been a household drug today if things had been differently.
There was a lot of disscussion on this. I remember the first time i learned of this. Its easy to draw a parrallel between the european countries/USA and the way american police treat their precincts as fraternities. A lot of the greater eauropean countries and the USA backed the british in this disgusting fight without really questioning the morality behind it.
 

Minus_Me

Member
Jul 25, 2012
5,402
1
420
Not many of you have mentioned the Opium wars and the boxer rebellion, which is fascinating to me. I've heard recently, that the British hostility was aimed at defending their honor, as the Chinese had no need to trade their Opium with the British.

That's crazy! That the British wanted to legalize Opium and distribute the same way they did sugar, tea, cocoa and other goods. I wonder if Opium could have been a household drug today if things had been differently.

There was a massive balance of trade deficit based around Tea. The English wanted tea in a never ending stream but the Chinese could only buy so many Cuckoo clocks. Opium from India was an astounding product to right that balance.
 

Piecake

Member
Jun 11, 2004
16,157
0
0
Not many of you have mentioned the Opium wars and the boxer rebellion, which is fascinating to me. I've heard recently, that the British hostility was aimed at defending their honor, as the Chinese had no need to trade their Opium with the British.

That's crazy! That the British wanted to legalize Opium and distribute the same way they did sugar, tea, cocoa and other goods. I wonder if Opium could have been a household drug today if things had been differently.

There was actually quite a few posts on the Opium Wars a ways back, so if you are interested I would check those out. I would also recommend this book. I just got done reading it and it is quite fantastic.

There was a lot of disscussion on this. I remember the first time i learned of this. Its easy to draw a parrallel between the european countries/USA and the way police treat their precints as fraternities. A lot of the greater eauropean countries and the USA backed the british in this disgusting fight without really questioning the moreality behind it.

There was actually quite a bit of opposition to the war on moral grounds in Britain. It is just that those moral grounds. were never enough to impede the war. Hell, the opposition to the 2nd Opium War actually managed to topple Lord Palmerston's government for that specific reason. The problem is, is that he won it back in the next election by waging a "Xenophobic scare campaign, bombarding pictorials with shocking propaganda images of CHinese tortures and execturions, of 'disjointing, chipping to pieces, tearing the body asunder by pullies, skinning alive etc.' 'Really the whole civilized world,' went one commentary, 'out to combine together...to teach these wretches the common principles of humanity."

Palmerston got support from the Merchant and missionary community, got re-elected and got his 2nd war.
 

StayDead

Member
Mar 10, 2011
16,154
1
0
I'm american and I'm proud of it.

The conquering and claiming of land has always been the way the world worked, every empire did it but ultimately it spread language and culture so something to be proud of for sure.

The problem is especially in America's case. Europe destroyed (nearly) an entire people and their way of life to achieve what America has become.
 

Cocaloch

Member
Apr 16, 2013
3,789
0
0
Chicago
British people can be proud of the accomplishments of their country without being proud of the Empire, which ultimately wasn't nearly as integral to British advances of the 18th and 19th centuries as a lot of people think. The fact that Britain could establish its empire is undoubtedly impressive, but the fact that it did, and the means by which it maintained that empire which tended to be far worse that its mere establishment, is a stark reminder of just how far the modern west has come in the last hundred years or so.
 

akira28

Member
Aug 31, 2010
43,251
0
715
Patriotism is just another way to get the innocent and the uninvolved to co-sign on the fuckery that people with bloody hands have gotten up to. "Hey you like your country don't you? It's a part of you, and its awesome, just like you are awesome!"

its bullshit. sociology playing people like fiddles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.