Anniversaries, 09/11 and Hurricane Ike

[Alc]

Originally Posted by Brianwarnock
I wont bother with the other rediculous statements but this one is so daft it displays this persons total ignorance of history, of course Britain changed the world, usually for the better, though the European carve up of Africa is still leaving a legacy of problems, perhaps if we had indulged in the genocidal approach as the US did then things would have been ok.

It is interesting that you think Britan changed the world for the better. I know that there are many countries that would disagree. I seem to remember reading an article just recently out of Kenya where the government there is demanding Britan pay them for all the damages, murders, etc that were part of that country's history.

Unless it's changed very recently, Kenya would fall under the umbrella of 'Africa' and so is covered by Brian's statement. You're using a point that agrees with what he said to argue against him.

I also have no doubt that some Americans truly believe that we are changing Iraq and Afghanistan for the better.

Some people have strange beliefs. It's not just Americans.

In my opinion, Britan, through history, has tried to dominate and subjugate many countries in the world. In doing so they forced these other countries to change and adopt British laws, rules, culture, etc.

Yes it did (hardly a controversial viewpoint).
As did the Greeks, the Macedonians, the Romans, the Spanish, the French, the Mongols, the Persians, and every other nation that's expanded. I can't think of many, if any, examples of countries that expanded their emipre by asking to be invited into a foreign land and taking a vote among the native population as to whether this new land wanted to take on aspects of the arriving culture.
The Greeks took their knowledge of science to the countries they invaded.
Rome invaded Britain. Lots of Britons died. They left behind advances like paved roads.
The Mongols took advances in science and weaponry from places like China and spread them to the West.
In the long term, there are many, many places that have improved as a result of having been conquered.
Was it all good? Of course not, but a lot of good did come of it.

It may be 'better' for Britan, America, and other English speaking countries that these subjugated countries speak English, have legal systems very similar to ours, etc. However, I can't imagine that those countries put to the sword would have agreed at the time that it was for the better. Some may now, after many years of indoctrination to the British way of life.

'You' only have a language, legal system, etc. very similar to 'ours' because of the domination and subjugation you mentioned earlier. Do you think most Americans would prefer it if they were still living off the land in tribes, as they were when the Europeans arrived, or does the fact that they now live in a rich, prosperous country outweigh what their ancestors went through?

 

[dan-cat]

FWIW Slavery has existed since the beginning of time, Britain was the first country to abolish it.
The american civil war was about power, the slavery issue was an excuse, didn't I read that Lincoln had slaves?

Brian

You've just jumped straight into the old point scoring routine in an attempt to make out your country is something special. Britain was fully complicit in slavery. End Of.

As Alc has pointed out, the British empire was just like any other. An exercise in power. Not a selfless institution motivated by the desire to improve the quality of life for all.

 

[dan-cat]

'You' only have a language, legal system, etc. very similar to 'ours' because of the domination and subjugation you mentioned earlier. Do you think most Americans would prefer it if they were still living off the land in tribes, as they were when the Europeans arrived, or does the fact that they now live in a rich, prosperous country outweigh what their ancestors went through?

Hindsight is 20/20. At the time, Native Americans were getting slaughtered. How could you possibly ask them to think from such a utilitarian point of view?

 

[Pauldohert]

You've just jumped straight into the old point scoring routine in an attempt to make out your country is something special. Britain was fully complicit in slavery. End Of.

Its a total lack of respect to engage in such things on a thread with the obvious purpose this thread had.

Its not too difficult to start another thread is it.

 

[Alc]

Hindsight is 20/20. At the time, Native Americans were getting slaughtered. How could you possibly ask them to think from such a utilitarian point of view?

I didn't ask the native Americans who were getting slaughtered.

quote:
"Do you think most Americans would prefer it if they were still living off the land in tribes, as they were when the Europeans arrived, or does the fact that they now live in a rich, prosperous country outweigh what their ancestors went through?"

That question was directed at present-day Americans. I imagine very few of you would prefer it if you were living how Americans lived in the 15th century, before us evil Europeans subjugated you and forced you to our way of doing things.

 

[dan-cat]

That question was directed at present-day Americans. I imagine very few of you would prefer it if you were living how Americans lived in the 15th century, before us evil Europeans subjugated you and forced you to our way of doing things.

It didn't take long to descend into the usual UK/US point scoring exercise. I'm going to take Paul's advice and exit stage left.

 

[Alc]

It didn't take long to descend into the usual UK/US point scoring exercise. I'm going to take Paul's advice and exit stage left.

That's a cop-out and you know it. I answered one post with another.

Adam stated the obvious with:
"In my opinion, Britan, through history, has tried to dominate and subjugate many countries in the world. In doing so they forced these other countries to change and adopt British laws, rules, culture, etc."

and followed up with the equally obvious
"It may be 'better' for Britan, America, and other English speaking countries that these subjugated countries speak English, have legal systems very similar to ours, etc. However, I can't imagine that those countries put to the sword would have agreed at the time that it was for the better. Some may now, after many years of indoctrination to the British way of life."

I gave evidence that this is true of many countries, not just the UK.

I used the examples of the UK and USA as those were the ones I was handed by him. If he'd used Spain and South America in his post, I'd have used those in the response.

I didn't notice you accusing him of scoring points when he made the initial statements, or does this point system of yours only work one-way?

 

[Adam Caramon]

Interesting that Adam chooses Kenya for his example when I had already accepted that the European carve up of Africa had left problems, hardly worth entering into a discussion with people who do not correctly acknowledge what has been written.

I chose Kenya simply because I just recently read something about it, not trying to score any points against you.

Unless it's changed very recently, Kenya would fall under the umbrella of 'Africa' and so is covered by Brian's statement. You're using a point that agrees with what he said to argue against him.

He's agreeing that Europeans carved up Africa. I was using a specific case of Great Britan rather than Europeans as a whole.

'You' only have a language, legal system, etc. very similar to 'ours' because of the domination and subjugation you mentioned earlier. Do you think most Americans would prefer it if they were still living off the land in tribes, as they were when the Europeans arrived, or does the fact that they now live in a rich, prosperous country outweigh what their ancestors went through?

I think there is quite a bit of difference in the situation of America. Most Americans are descendents of the subjugators rather than the subjugated.

If I was a Native American, then your analogy and following question would make more sense.

 

[Alc]

If I was a Native American, then your analogy and following question would make more sense.

So the original point that, in many cases, one country invading another has been good for the invaded country in the long term isn't true if the people at the time of the invasion weren't happy about it?

Since nobody likes being killed or subjugated, it would follow that no good has come from any country being conquered by another. Technology, etc. wouldn't have spread anywhere near as fast and human advancement would be considerably farther back than it is.

 

[Adam Caramon]

So the original point that, in many cases, one country invading another has been good for the invaded country in the long term isn't true if the people at the time of the invasion weren't happy about it?

Ah, but was that the point? Once again, you seem to be taking what is written and changing the scope.

Brian stated:

...of course Britain changed the world, usually for the better...

My contention with that statement was that the people who Britan 'changed' would probably not have agreed with the statement at the time Britan was 'changing' them.

 

[Alc]

Ah, but was that the point? Once again, you seem to be taking what is written and changing the scope.

My contention with that statement was that the people who Britan 'changed' would probably not have agreed with the statement at the time Britan was 'changing' them.

Nor would any country ever changed, at the time it was being changed.
Brian used Britain in his example, as Statsman had used it in his.

My point is that whatever is being said about Britain, specifically, can be applied - to varying degrees - to any country that ever engaged in the conquering of others.

 

[Rich]

You may retort with the US slave trade continuing long after the British equivalent but may I remind you that, that policy as much of America's, was INHERITED from British policy. It took a civil war at a cost of much human life to dispense with it.

You're missing the point that we became civilised centuries ago and the US continues with its colonisation policies disguised as "freedom"

 

[TessB]

It didn't take long to descend into the usual UK/US point scoring exercise. I'm going to take Paul's advice and exit stage left.

So, anyway..... who else played sports in school, or was in drama or chorus?

 

[Vassago]

We may as well just move this to the political forum.

 

[Kryst51]

We may as well just move this to the political forum.

I agree, as it has completely digressed from the title and purpose.

 

[MSAccessRookie]

We may as well just move this to the political forum.

You might have a point there, but with the attitudes of the people that like to misdirect threads in the Water Cooler, I suspect that more than a trivial amount of posts would wind up there. Imagine the work that would make for the poor Forum Monitors.

 

[statsman]

Britain did change the world, but for the most part the change really didn't take.

Starting in 1945, Britain began divesting itself of its Empire. The reason, beating Hitler had bankrupted the country and Britain no longer had the means to continue it. Those places around the world that were British colonies were quickly granted Dominion status. By the 1960s, the British Empire consisted of Gibraltor and Hong Kong (and a few other places).
I will give Britain credit. When independance came there was a well trained in-place native civil service so that the new country had a good chance to succeed. Dictatorships quickly overthrew democracy however, many of which continue to this day based primarily on tribal factions.
After a few hundred years of British rule, the whole place went back to the government they had before the British arrived.

Note: I am not saying ALL the countries that left the Colonial Office for the Commonwealth office have suffered this fate.

 

[Adam Caramon]

So, anyway..... who else played sports in school, or was in drama or chorus?

Football here. American football

 

[Kryst51]

Football here. American football

I was in the band

 

[georgedwilkinson]

I was in the band

Football, choir, chess club, French club.