Jump to content

The British Empire deserves to be hated more


mt774

Recommended Posts

 

These days it is fashionable for many British and American commentators to refer Muslims and Middle-East as "bloodthirsty" and "savage".

 

In all throughout history has there bever been a more savage, bloodthirsty dominion than that of The British Empire?

 

The British Empire produced some of the most evil men in history like Cecil Rhodes and Lord Kitchener.

 

It invented the concentration camps during the Boer Wars....

 

Millions were eradicated in India by the British during The Raj, el nino famine....

 

Apartheid

 

The British flooded China with opium when they couldn't get their own way...

 

Exterminated the Tasmanians!

 

The torture of the Mau Mau, oppression of the Irish etc etc....

 

Now why is that empire rarely mentioned when discussing evil throughout history? I mean people always mention Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the usual ones but the British Empire and all those evil figures associated with it get let off.

 

I think maybe people always seeing the classical British guy as being respectable and dressed in a suit with a top hat so maybe they don't agree he could have savage instincts.

 

agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shayan Shaffey

 

These days it is fashionable for many British and American commentators to refer Muslims and Middle-East as "bloodthirsty" and "savage".

No it's not. Stop projecting what your bias on large groups.

 

 

In all throughout history has there bever been a more savage, bloodthirsty dominion than that of The British Empire?

Third Reich, various Mongol Empires.

 

 

The British Empire produced some of the most evil men in history like Cecil Rhodes and Lord Kitchener.

Oh give me a f*cking break. Come back when Kitchener is responsible for 35 million deaths.

 

 

It invented the concentration camps during the Boer Wars....

 

Wrong

 

Millions were eradicated in India by the British during The Raj, el nino famine....

Famine occurred in India before Britain was even there, was that the fault of the Marathas? The Mughals? Or does it suddenly become Britain's fault when they get there?

 

 

Apartheid

Wasn't supported by Britain.

 

 

The British flooded China with opium when they couldn't get their own way...

You mean we engaged with trade in opium? OH THE HUMANITY! OH THE EVIL!

 

 

Exterminated the Tasmanians!

This wasn't British policy nor was it the British state who did so.

 

 

The torture of the Mau Mau, oppression of the Irish etc etc....

Oh god, I knew, I just knew you were going to mention the Irish.

 

 

Now why is that empire rarely mentioned when discussing evil throughout history? I mean people always mention Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the usual ones but the British Empire and all those evil figures associated with it get let off.

Are you blind? Whenever someone so much as mentions the UK the 'Big Bad British Empire' is brought up.

 

 

I think maybe people always seeing the classical British guy as being respectable and dressed in a suit with a top hat so maybe they don't agree he could have savage instincts.

Again, stop casting your own bias on other people.

 

 

agree?

 

definitely not.

Because the British built as well as destroyed. Same applies to any empire. When one compares empires, the British come out better than most. They still carry a legacy of guilt for their actions of the past as is witnessed by how they have morphed their culture into one of strident multiculturalism. It was British religion and the stirrings of a liberal democracy that outlawed the slave trade within British controlled areas and eventually led to the mostly peaceful breakup of the Empire.

Edited by Shayan Shaffey
user posted image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

glenn tha killer

 

 

The British Empire produced some of the most evil men in history like Cecil Rhodes and Lord Kitchener.

Oh give me a f*cking break. Come back when Kitchener is responsible for 35 million deaths.

 

 

definitely not.

they had Oliver Cromwell

user posted image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why hate any Empire? Empires are merely a reflection of the human spirit. The strong absorbing and destroying the weak. And the problem I have is that strength doesn't take into account culture or heritage. No, it wipes away everything and replaces it with something more practical and cold.

It all started with Alexander, spreading Greek culture to 'enlighten' the primitive tribes he encountered. As though they had no ideas of their own.

 

In this regard, I believe that the British Empire was not as bad as the Macedonians or Romans. Indeed, we seemed to celebrate the cultures of our conquered slaves and found the exotic lands and peoples very interesting. We abolished slavery, sure, that was only because it became unprofitable, but why quibble over motives? But mainly, our Empire helped us get stinking rich. We did very well out of the whole endeavour, but it was doomed.

 

Nowadays I think we've realised that the Empires of the future will be based on ideas, not soldiers. If we can export ideas and have other lands accept those ideas, we can rebuild an Empire by creating cultures that are ideologically similar to our own. America has already done this, which is why I respect them so much. Because they exported commercialism and capitalism to so many lands that they are in effect an Empire of shadows. Manipulating governments behind the scenes using a vast intelligence network.

That's the way forward.

 

Yes. Conquest through force of arms is good for invigorating an unsettled populace. But open war and invasion must be avoided at all costs. Not least because of the immense human suffering it causes. I admit to being an Imperialist. But I would like to export our democratic values whilst allowing people to maintain their culture, history and traditions.

 

Nothing is more evil, detestable an sickening than a nation turning its back on its past. And that is a sin many, many Empires are guilty of encouraging. I respect and admire the strength of will that is needed to forge an Empire, I respect the sense of pride it engenders amongst the people, I respect the sheer impact it has on history. But nothing justifies eradicating all those things people hold dear. Whether it be a Monarchy, a religion or a language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The empires of all the colonial powers (not just the United Kingdom) are riddled with cases like these. Yes, they're abhorrent, and yes we bear responsibility for them. But I would like to address a few things you say...

 

 

These days it is fashionable for many British and American commentators to refer Muslims and Middle-East as "bloodthirsty" and "savage".

Only if they are idiots. It's rare for an intelligent commentator to dismiss complex issues in such a way; its certainly not something I've seen done in the mass media. In the public, perhaps, but the public are on-the-whole poorly educated, reactionary, and governed by mob-rule. Besides, are you saying that living in the British empire was worse (in terms of the likelihood of dying violently) than living in, say, post-invasion Iraq- or even, for that matter, Iraq under Saddam Hussein? Or in Somalia currently? Or in the FATA area of Pakistan? Or in Sudan? Because if one were to compare the statistical likelihood of dying violently in each of those societies compared to the baseline population, they would be a lot more "bloodthirsty" and "savage" than even the darkest days of colonialism.

 

 

In all throughout history has there bever been a more savage, bloodthirsty dominion than that of The British Empire?

Yes, there has. How about Stalin's purges, which in he had executed somewhere between 800,000 and 1,500,000 individuals in a two year period (along with approximately one million more who died due to their treatment in internment camps, Gulags and ghettos)? Against a population of 162 million, that represents more than 1% of the entire population of the Soviet Union at the time being executed or dying from politically motivated malnutrition, neglect or disease in a two year period. The problem with looking at statistics "in the round" is that they aren't representative of actions compared to a population. For instance, an individual living in Iraq between 2004 and 2007 is around 50 times more likely to have been violently killed (due to sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia) than a citizen of the British empire at any point in history. Remember, the British controlled one quarter of the world's land mass and almost one third of the world's population at it's peak, so even particularly violent incidents in British territories pale in comparison to events that have happened in sovereign nation states in the years since.

 

 

The British Empire produced some of the most evil men in history like Cecil Rhodes and Lord Kitchener.

Rhodes was certainly a little deranged, but his negative legacy is partially due to a modern misunderstanding of terminology. He advocated "colonialism", which in modern terms is synonymous with "imperialism" but in actuality they are two different entities. "Imperialism" is the direct control of foreign lands by a nation state from a centralised political administration. "Colonialism" involves these states operating autonomously, self-governing but still falling under the power of an outside state. The latter is the way that most of the British Empire was actually run and managed, with a degree of semi-autonomous self-governance for internal states, but those states falling under the dominion of the British Empire in some areas. It's not dissimilar in terms of basic operation of the Commonwealth states as they exist today, or to some extent the European Union or other multi-national institutions. Not to say that either man was a saint, but there have been far worse in history. Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, Pol Pot, Mau Zedong, Hideki Tōjō, Charles Taylor, Radovan Karadžić, Vladimir Lenin, Ahmad Harun, Omar al-Bashir and Saddam Hussein to name but a few.

 

 

It invented the concentration camps during the Boer Wars....

It is not factually accurate to state that the United Kingdom invented the internment (concentration) camp. The existence of "internment camps" goes back to at least the Roman times, and was certainly prevalent in history long before the Boer War. There's documented proof of camps very similar in role and operation in the Russian Empire during the 18th Century, and camps existed in the United States for native Americans in the 1830s as well as during the Philippine war (1899) and in Cuba during the Ten Years War (1860s some time). The British used internment camps, yes- they may have coined the use of the phrase "concentration camp", but they did not invent them.

 

 

Millions were eradicated in India by the British during The Raj, el nino famine....

Again, you're confusing "empire" with "colony". The British government were not directly in charge of governance of India, it was, like most large overseas territories, self-governing and semi-autonomous. That's not to say that the British didn't have a hand in what ever went on there, but the majority of despicable actions- which occurred after 1858- were carried out by organisations acting under the pretext of being the moral and legal authority of the British, but often with little to no direct input from the United Kingdom itself.

 

 

Apartheid

Which wasn't a creation of the British. When the first regulations came into force that formed the basis for later Apartheid (during the early 1910s) South Africa was operating a semi-autonomous state. It was only after the end of British colonialism in South Africa that Apartheid as we know it came into existence. There was a degree of societal segregation before that point, but that had been implemented by the Dutch before the British gained control of South Africa, and under international law the British were required to respect existing Roman-Dutch law. Put simply, the basis for Apartheid came not from British legislation or governance, but from independence and pre-existing Dutch law.

 

 

The British flooded China with opium when they couldn't get their own way...

That's a very simplistic way of putting it. China was a primary Opium producer- had been for centuries- and at the time of the break-down in relations between the British Empire and the Chinese authorities, attempts to stamp out opium use in China through the banning of it in 1810. The primary reason that the British smuggled opium into China during and after the "Opium Wars" was because there was a demand for it and Britain could profit from that demand in a time of prohibition.

 

 

Exterminated the Tasmanians!

Granted, but the majority died due to a lack of immunity to Western diseases, rather than actually being exterminated voluntarily by the British.

 

 

The torture of the Mau Mau, oppression of the Irish etc etc....

Opperssion of the Irish goes both ways, as does the actions in the Mau-Mau conflict. In the case of the latter, you attack the British but conveniently ignore the ethnic cleansing of the Kikuyu minority in Mau-Mau controlled territories? Double standards much?

 

 

Now why is that empire rarely mentioned when discussing evil throughout history? I mean people always mention Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the usual ones but the British Empire and all those evil figures associated with it get let off.

For two simple reasons-

1) In the grand scheme of things, events that occurred during this time followed the "line" of events that other states and Imperial/Colonial powers were engaged in. The one possible exception to that being the Kenya Emergency, which is far less clear-cut than you make it out to be. You're falling into the trap of judging the actions of a historic power by modern moral standards. The events of more recent times- after the liberalisation of Europe around the turn of the century and therefore belong on a different moral "platform" as it were. The "Great Purge" was a terrible event compared to events that were happening in Europe during the early 1930s, but the actions of the Raj in India weren't particularly abhorrent when compared to the behaviour of the French in West Africa, or the Dutch in the Indies.

 

2) As I've already explained, the majority of the British empire wasn't controlled from Britain, it operated autonomously or semi-autonomously under regional government arrangements. Whilst some ultimate power and responsibility must rest with the British mainland for the operation of these colonies and events that occurred in them, it's nowhere near as clear-cut as you suggest it to be.

 

 

I think maybe people always seeing the classical British guy as being respectable and dressed in a suit with a top hat so maybe they don't agree he could have savage instincts.

 

agree?

Not really, no. For future reference- if your going to make a controversial argument, it helps to check your facts first.

Untitled-1.jpg
AMD Ryzen 5900X (4.7GHz All-Core PBO2) | Gigabye X570S Pro | 32GB G-Skill Trident Z RGB 3600MHz CL16

EK-Quantum Reflection D5 | XSPC D5 PWM | TechN CPU Blocks | HardwareLabs GTS & GTX 360 Radiators
Corsair AX750 | Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic XL | ASUS RTX 4080 TUF @2970MHz | Sabrant Rocket Plus 1TB
Sabrant Rocket 2TB | Samsung 970 Evo 1TB | 2x ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q | Q Acoustics 2010i | Sabaj A4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I alluded to in my post in the American Decline topic, I'm not a fan of the idea that the Empire was the best of British history. It's something I can't quite nail down my feelings on, because of the vast amounts of both evil and good that it did across the globe.

 

Forcibly imposing your values, standards and social/economic structures on others is abhorrent, and this Britishness was our biggest export during the Empire's time. We were responsible for an unimaginable amount of slave trading, destruction, death and also some of the most exploitative examples of early aggressive capitalism (i.e. East India company). We royally f*cked up large swathes of the planet and destabilised them for generations to come.

 

But, and this is a big but, we also spread enlightenment and technology, and advanced civilisation across the very same swathes of the planet. It is very easy to say that if the British Empire had not been so aggressive in its expansion and control of foreign lands, the modern world would be a very different place. It's quite a good parallel for the Roman empire in that sense; everything that posed a threat was crushed underfoot and that which did not was assimilated and brought under control. The loss of those conquered was significant, but so were the benefits of living under such an empire. We're only lucky that, thanks to the scale and disjointed geographical nature of the empire, and the existence of competition, that there wasn't a similar fallout to the fall of the Romans. No second major Dark Age for us.

 

tl;dr Good idea. Bad execution.

 

Also, anyone who has that image of a typical Brit needs to spend a few hours in a Glasgow council estate.

 

@Shayan, just because someone else did the same bad thing but worse doesn't get you off the hook for doing terrible things.

Edited by Robinski
user posted image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shayan Shaffey

 

Shayan, you are Iranian? why would you defend British/American imperialism? Remember Mossadegh?

Yes, mossadegh and most of Iranian hope for a modern Iran was destroyed by The british. But not the british empire, the current government did it.

Edited by Shayan Shaffey
user posted image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sivi, many people were living miserably at the time of the empire, they might not have had a warzone in London but they had starvation, malnutrition and unimaginable levels of poverty while the "respectable" middle-classes and elites ignored them, or threw them in debt prisons.

 

it doesn't matter that some of those crimes were not directly perpetuated by the British, they still had more than a hand in them and were directly overseeing, or turning blind eye to suffering due to being the "great satan" of the time.

 

there can be no excuses for the crimes the British and rest of Europeans carried out in Africa and Asia especially.

 

So many like King Leopold, Lotha Von Trotha, PW Botha, Oppenheimer, the debeers have all been supported or tolerated by the British for their own gains,

 

the scale of the world that was affected and is still affected (Zimbabwe, India) by the actions carried out by the British empire and in its name is why i call it evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

sivi, many people were living miserably at the time of the empire, they might not have had a warzone in London but they had starvation, malnutrition and unimaginable levels of poverty while the "respectable" middle-classes and elites ignored them, or threw them in debt prisons.

And? Like I said, compare the actions of the British with any other nation state or empire power of the era, and then get back to me. Trying to judge the morality of a 100/200/300 year-old regime using modern moral standards is utterly ridiculous. It's like defaming or attacking Italy because of the actions of the Romans, or Greece for the aggressive foreign policy of it's ancient citizens. Completely absurd.

 

 

it doesn't matter that some of those crimes were not directly perpetuated by the British, they still had more than a hand in them and were directly overseeing, or turning blind eye to suffering due to being the "great satan" of the time.

Actually, it does matter- quite a lot, in fact. You can't blame an entire nation, or their army, if one platoon defects and goes on a killing spree. You can hold a nation responsible for the actions of sub-national groups inside their boundaries, but not in foreign countries unless those engaged abroad are in a state of actual conflict (combatants).You still don't get this idea that morality is relative based on the point of observation. The Mayan people would have no qualms about sacrificing children to appease the gods, but I don't hear you objecting to that.

 

 

there can be no excuses for the crimes the British and rest of Europeans carried out in Africa and Asia especially.

I'm not disagreeing with you in principal, but feel you are rather overstating their significance. As I've said before, they pale in comparison to far more brutal, violent and disgusting recent events.

 

 

So many like King Leopold, Lotha Von Trotha, PW Botha, Oppenheimer, the debeers have all been supported or tolerated by the British for their own gains,

And? Why is that any different to far more violent and brutal events that go on today under the noses of powers? At the end of the day, nations are amoral; there's no morality in international relations itself, and it's perfectly within a nations right to benefit from events of the time. In fact, it could be argued that its one of the primary duties of a nation to pursue its own self-interest.

 

 

the scale of the world that was affected and is still affected (Zimbabwe, India) by the actions carried out by the British empire and in its name is why i call it evil.

Really? There's one thing attacking the ills of a colonial legacy, that's fair enough, but actually blaming the failures modern nation states on that legacy? That just demonstrates a poor knowledge of the subject matter. Gukurahundi, the land grabs, ethnic cleansing of the Northern Ndebele people, persecutions of white minorities, these are all results of the British, not of long-drawn-out and pre-existing sectarian violence that if anything was effectively suppressed by British rule? Zimbabwe's economic state at the moment? Well, that's due to economic corruption and mismanagement by the ZANU PF regime since the Lancaster House agreement. Going back even further, the Rhodesian Bush War- the main event that framed this period in Southern African history, didn't even involve the British. So, far from the ills of a colonial legacy, it's a demonstration of modern corruption and economic mismanagement. You can try and spin it any way you want, but blaming the UK for the current state of Zimbabwe is like blaming the Canadians for the Holocaust.

 

Try again. You may abhor it today, but would you have back then? Morality and ethics have evolved plenty since the late 1980s, let alone the 1890s. I will repeat myself- you cannot judge actions perpetrated by a society ethically alien to our own based on your current ethical views. You have to look at them objectively, based on the understanding and beliefs of the time.

 

Untitled-1.jpg
AMD Ryzen 5900X (4.7GHz All-Core PBO2) | Gigabye X570S Pro | 32GB G-Skill Trident Z RGB 3600MHz CL16

EK-Quantum Reflection D5 | XSPC D5 PWM | TechN CPU Blocks | HardwareLabs GTS & GTX 360 Radiators
Corsair AX750 | Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic XL | ASUS RTX 4080 TUF @2970MHz | Sabrant Rocket Plus 1TB
Sabrant Rocket 2TB | Samsung 970 Evo 1TB | 2x ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q | Q Acoustics 2010i | Sabaj A4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why judge Hitler and Stalin by current ethical views then? We have no hesitation to call their actions evil even though happened a long time ago.

 

I fail to see how the raping and pillaging of an entire continent is not that significant compared to more recent things.

 

People always say Cecil Rhodes wasn't evil because he was "just doing what was normal at the time". Well, we could say this about anything: "Jim Crow wasn't too bad because during that era it was quite common for those practices" Nanjin Massacre was okay because Japanese just wanted to use Chinese for medical experiments.

 

and many ppl DO blame the British for the current state of Zimbabwe and this article explains:

 

http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=2713

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why judge Hitler and Stalin by current ethical views then? We have no hesitation to call their actions evil even though happened a long time ago.

 

I fail to see how the raping and pillaging of an entire continent is not that significant compared to more recent things.

 

People always say Cecil Rhodes wasn't evil because he was "just doing what was normal at the time". Well, we could say this about anything: "Jim Crow wasn't too bad because during that era it was quite common for those practices" Nanjin Massacre was okay because Japanese just wanted to use Chinese for medical experiments.

 

and many ppl DO blame the British for the current state of Zimbabwe and this article explains:

 

http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=2713

Because, as I've already explained, the 1930s and 1940s are ethically not particularly different from the present day. The 1800s are. It's not hard to grasp, why are you struggling?

 

Raping? Where? Are you trying to suggest the British government sanctioned rape? And in terms of pure statistics, it isn't significant. Comparing a few thousand deaths over a period of several decades, though abhorrent, to murdering more than 1% of your nation's entire population in two years or trying to exterminate an entire, 10-million-man-strong racial group in a few short years is nonsensical before one even gets started on the aforementioned point.

 

I'm not trying to dismiss these events as trivial, but putting them into perspective. In the perspective of the time, the Jim Crow laws weren't that disgusting or despicable. It doesn't make them right by today's moral standards, but it doesn't make them an abnormal case worthy of special consideration and condemnation either. Again, in the case of the Nanjin massacre, can you find me a single event in Colonial history that resulted in the deaths of 300,000 people?

 

Using a conspiracy theorist's personal website as evidence for anything is just moronic. Many people believe lots of things. It doesn't make them true.

Untitled-1.jpg
AMD Ryzen 5900X (4.7GHz All-Core PBO2) | Gigabye X570S Pro | 32GB G-Skill Trident Z RGB 3600MHz CL16

EK-Quantum Reflection D5 | XSPC D5 PWM | TechN CPU Blocks | HardwareLabs GTS & GTX 360 Radiators
Corsair AX750 | Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic XL | ASUS RTX 4080 TUF @2970MHz | Sabrant Rocket Plus 1TB
Sabrant Rocket 2TB | Samsung 970 Evo 1TB | 2x ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q | Q Acoustics 2010i | Sabaj A4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So why judge Hitler and Stalin by current ethical views then? We have no hesitation to call their actions evil even though happened a long time ago.

 

I fail to see how the raping and pillaging of an entire continent is not that significant compared to more recent things.

 

People always say Cecil Rhodes wasn't evil because he was "just doing what was normal at the time". Well, we could say this about anything: "Jim Crow wasn't too bad because during that era it was quite common for those practices" Nanjin Massacre was okay because Japanese just wanted to use Chinese for medical experiments.

 

and many ppl DO blame the British for the current state of Zimbabwe and this article explains:

 

http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=2713

Because, as I've already explained, the 1930s and 1940s are ethically not particularly different from the present day. The 1800s are. It's not hard to grasp, why are you struggling?

 

Raping? Where? Are you trying to suggest the British government sanctioned rape? And in terms of pure statistics, it isn't significant. Comparing a few thousand deaths over a period of several decades, though abhorrent, to murdering more than 1% of your nation's entire population in two years or trying to exterminate an entire, 10-million-man-strong racial group in a few short years is nonsensical before one even gets started on the aforementioned point.

 

I'm not trying to dismiss these events as trivial, but putting them into perspective. In the perspective of the time, the Jim Crow laws weren't that disgusting or despicable. It doesn't make them right by today's moral standards, but it doesn't make them an abnormal case worthy of special consideration and condemnation either. Again, in the case of the Nanjin massacre, can you find me a single event in Colonial history that resulted in the deaths of 300,000 people?

 

Using a conspiracy theorist's personal website as evidence for anything is just moronic. Many people believe lots of things. It doesn't make them true.

Is there any crime against blacks/Africans that you will consider hanus?

 

It seems like you are using the excuses/attitude of those who say "The Africans were primitive, so it's not so bad"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

General Goose

....no he isn't.

 

No-one here is justifying the atrocities of the British Empire. But what we're saying is, well, every nation has skeletons in their closets, and if we act like "one" empire was particularly bad, did nothing good whatsoever and we should make that the defining moment of their entire culture and heritage (which is what you seem to be proposing), then we're going into pretty bigoted territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, you appear to be rather dim.

 

- Lets keep on the topic -

 

Edit- Sorry brotha.

Edited by *MURDOC*
38773_s.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

um its called FORGIVE AND FORGET. Ever heard of it?

USA dropped a nuke on japan in the war. They forgave us. Case closed.

user posted imageuser posted imageuser posted imageuser posted imageuser posted image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Case closed.

I wouldn't go that far.

 

You can't really say there are no hard feelings or animosity in situations like that.

 

A good example would be black people who are still angry at whites over slavery. (even though they weren't the only race to own slaves, but that's beside the point)

Edited by *MURDOC*
38773_s.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

um its called FORGIVE AND FORGET. Ever heard of it?

USA dropped a nuke on japan in the war. They forgave us. Case closed.

 

USA dropped a nuke on japan in the war. They forgave us. Case closed.
probably because it was a war. if they did it out of the blue like it was the equivalent of "poking" on facebook it would probably have been remembered as poor form from the US.

 

not sure what history books OP has been reading though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

USA dropped a nuke on japan in the war. They forgave us. Case closed.

probably because it was a war. if they did it out of the blue like it was the equivalent of "poking" on facebook it would probably have been remembered as poor form from the US.

Mildy contentious issue to say the least. There's been a lot of discussion on the actual reasoning behind the two bombs- whether it was, in fact, a final blow to neutralise the threat posed by Japan (the accepted story, but somewhat unnecessary) or whether it was an act of brinkmanship to show the Soviet Union who was boss. I'm inclined to think a combination of the two, personally.

Untitled-1.jpg
AMD Ryzen 5900X (4.7GHz All-Core PBO2) | Gigabye X570S Pro | 32GB G-Skill Trident Z RGB 3600MHz CL16

EK-Quantum Reflection D5 | XSPC D5 PWM | TechN CPU Blocks | HardwareLabs GTS & GTX 360 Radiators
Corsair AX750 | Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic XL | ASUS RTX 4080 TUF @2970MHz | Sabrant Rocket Plus 1TB
Sabrant Rocket 2TB | Samsung 970 Evo 1TB | 2x ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q | Q Acoustics 2010i | Sabaj A4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, after carefully reviewing the topics this guy made, and his posts, I came to 2 possible conclusions. Either he's the biggest f*ckin' idiot I've ever seen, or he's just a troll. Whatever the case may be, just ignore him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey GTAVanja, you are Jamaican, and you do know many Brits hate Jamaicans and blame all crime problems in society on them.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey GTAVanja, you are Jamaican, and you do know many Brits hate Jamaicans and blame all crime problems in society on them.....

A couple of points.

 

Firstly, shut up. Your misrepresentations of British life, feelings and culture are deeply offensive and extremely deluded. You claim to have spent time living in the UK, but it's evidently not been long enough to actually gain any understanding of the country. Your lack of understanding of history and current affairs is laughable, and the fact that you seem to present your opinions and often-poorly-informed or downright incorrect views as fact is absurd.

 

I'm inclined to side with GTAVanja, and go with the "strange troll" option. I struggle to believe that someone could be so self-righteous and morally vindictive, and yet so poorly informed about the very things which he discusses.

 

I've got my eye on you.

Untitled-1.jpg
AMD Ryzen 5900X (4.7GHz All-Core PBO2) | Gigabye X570S Pro | 32GB G-Skill Trident Z RGB 3600MHz CL16

EK-Quantum Reflection D5 | XSPC D5 PWM | TechN CPU Blocks | HardwareLabs GTS & GTX 360 Radiators
Corsair AX750 | Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic XL | ASUS RTX 4080 TUF @2970MHz | Sabrant Rocket Plus 1TB
Sabrant Rocket 2TB | Samsung 970 Evo 1TB | 2x ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q | Q Acoustics 2010i | Sabaj A4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

General Goose
you do know many Brits hate Jamaicans and blame all crime problems in society on them.....

Yeah, you really have no idea about British life or culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, the OP himself may be a bit dim, but the question of whether the British (or any of its competitors' really) Empire had a net good or bad effect is quite valid.

 

Also, lol @ Brits blaming Jamaicans for all the crime. There are hardly any Jamaicans here, how the f*ck could they be responsible for most of the crime. That is unless mt was just being a racist and meant "black people", which is still ridiculous.

user posted image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a question. Why should I, as an Englishman, even care about the atrocities of my government?

I ask this honestly. Because the people who say I should care seem motivated purely by racism or some Anarchistic longing for mindless slavery.

When you pick on my country, my people, my heritage, you push people like me in the opposite direction you intended. Because I care far less about the complete extermination of the native Tasmanians than I do about the motives of those who bring up that extermination.

 

Although I do concede that the way we treated the Tasmanians was abhorent. First we killed them for sport and then we sent the survivors to a barren island where they could see their native land but never return. I believe when the last Tasmanian died, we had her brain discected and her body put in a glass case.

But I don't really care. Just like I don't care about what we did to the Indian mutineers, or the people of Benin, or the Scots or the Irish or the Native Americans.

 

Why? Because if I were around when these killings were taking place, I would actively support them. I'm that sort of man, the greatness and success of my country means everything to me. Maybe mt774 doesn't understand that but I don't waste time with false compassion for people I have never met. The strong kill the weak, the big conquer the small and the world keeps turning. You expect me to weep for every injustice? You expect me to care?

Edited by Typhus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

- D&D is for proper debate and discussion. Light-hearted Youtube videos and the like can go elsewhere. SVP - Edited by sivispacem
Yl8KS.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hey GTAVanja, you are Jamaican, and you do know many Brits hate Jamaicans and blame all crime problems in society on them.....

And we come to the crux of this whole thread. This isnt about condemning the British Empire at all, its simply yet another flimsy excuse to have a go at the UK in general and satisfy some stupid, irrational biases. Frankly its pathetic and its been done a million times before.

 

Ok, so you dont like the UK. We get it, and we dont care.

 

yawn.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey GTAVanja, you are Jamaican, and you do know many Brits hate Jamaicans and blame all crime problems in society on them.....

Woah, what the heck? You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Also +3 to GTAvanja's OP being a troll idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typhus you sir are the only patriotic Brit I have encountered on this forum so far. Empire is the greatest we have ever accomplished. The strong conquer the weak. It is no more complicated than that notion. As my great-grandfather's title stated - For God, and for Empire. We must reestablish our Empire if we want to remain strong. It will not be long before our leaders are taken out of the running for the most influential in the world and replaced with Germans.

 

The Empire must retake former territory. However I must pose this. Why do you display an English flag if you truly love our Empire?

G1T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.