Brits Need To Stop Believing It Was An Honor To Be Under Their Empir...

» Home » Society

Brits Need To Stop Believing It Was An Honor To Be Under Their Empire

Every time I get into a debate with a Brit they always take the position that being under their empire was a privilege. Look, I don't care if a society chooses to eat mud or scrape their food with their toes, it is not a privilege simply because you believe a fork is a more civilized way of eating. The whole point throughout history is that societies do not want to be controlled by other societies. And to suggest that life would have been worse without your influence shows utter arrogance on your part.

moreno

03 Nov 2009 14:30

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

Im for it, but would America not still be for the indians in that case?
That fact alone means you probably make a very good point.
Britains empire was much master and slave, raping countries for resources. The civilisation they gave them was conformity to our civilisation, better advanced, but not necessarily better.
Seems to me not much has changed.
Rule western democracy..The worlds new empire.

2free

07 Nov 2009 01:25

Add a Comment

Too right. They were the cause of famine in Ireland, and left us to starve! Back then they were nothin but pansys!! :)

lyd09

03 Nov 2009 22:37

Add a Comment

Now I know what prompted this debate. I believe your debate title is what you think I think but you have just jumped to that conclusion based on your own prejudice. It may suprise you to know that I agree. If you only stopped presuming what people thought, stopped making sweeping prejudices about groups of people (an act you claim to detest but are one of the most guilty of) and digested information you might be able to move past teenage, no it all, thought processes.

Yes us Brits do need to realise that the days of the Empire are long gone and so be it. That us bringing civilisation to the world with a gun in our hands whilst reaping massive personal rewards at the cost of so much to so many was not something to be proud of. Whilst you might refuse to recognise that there were many good things that were done and that it is all too easy to judge the past by today's standards, we Brits carry a burden of shame for dirty deeds that were done in our name. That said what country could that not be said of - we are all humans and share the same nasty natures. The truth is we were just bloody good at it (something that I am not proud of) and the time in history that we were bloody good at it meant that we did our Empire building on a global scale. The sooner you, and others (New Labour + the BNP) grasp this, then, and only then, will we be able to stop hatred and war. Also then people would be responsible for their actions today rather than you excusing them based on what happened before any of us were alive. This is the only way forward.

In my opinion we should position ourselves in a similar stance to the Scandinavian countries and just look after ourselves not think we are some big player on he world scene that we no longer are. I bet then you will probably say that we should be doing more to help others and are being a selfish nation, such is your blind hatred.

Benali

StBalders

03 Nov 2009 20:05

4 Comments

I'm not making sweeping prejudices about people. I only talk history.

The problem is Britian cannot take the stance as Scandinavians because Brits have made it part of their culture to involve themselves in other cultures around the world. To be like Scandinavians is not culturally or economically in the best interest of Brits. Your economic interest are so ingrained around the world it would take a total economic and cultural overhaul of England.

From a historical perspective England uses more resources than it should which motivated expansion similar to the US.

Scandinavian countries use only what they need and don't try to sap the worlds resources so there is no need for an influx of immigrants to work for cheap.

I really don't care if you help others or not. Everytime a powerful nation claims to help others, there is always a motive behind it. They always want something back in return.

The only thing the World Bank became was the worlds Loan Shark. And we all know who control the World Bank.

moreno

03 Nov 2009 20:30

Comment

I'm not making sweeping prejudices about people.  I only talk history.

The problem is Britian cannot take the stance as Scandinavians because Brits have made it part of their culture to involve themselves in other cultures around the world.  To be like Scandinavians is not culturally or economically in the best interest of Brits.  Your economic interest are so ingrained around the world it would take a total economic and cultural overhaul of England.

From a historical perspective England uses more resources than it should which motivated expansion similar to the US.

Scandinavian countries use only what they need and don't try to sap the worlds resources so there is no need for an influx of immigrants to work for cheap.

I really don't care if you help others or not.  Everytime a powerful nation claims to help others, there is always a motive behind it.  They always want something back in return.

The only thing the World Bank became was the worlds Loan Shark.    And we all know who control the World Bank.

Comment

I'm not making sweeping prejudices about people.  I only talk history.

From a historical perspective England uses more resources than it should which motivated expansion similar to the US.

Scandinavian countries use only what they need and don't try to sap the worlds resources so there is no need for an influx of immigrants to work for cheap.

I really don't care if you help others or not.  Everytime a powerful nation claims to help others, there is always a motive behind it.  They always want something back in return.

The only thing the World Bank became was the worlds Loan Shark.    And we all know who control the World Bank.

Comment

You do make sweeping prejudices about people, you most definitely do.  Perhaps you need to start talking about more than just history so you can get what you have learned into a better perspective.

The statement that Britain historically used more resources than it should is ambiguous.  Although I would probably agree if we are speaking relatively.  The statement that Scandinavians only use what they need is odd and simply not true, they have all the material trappings that any other 1st world country (of want of a better term) has.  Once again, there are few nations of which that could not be said.

"Scandinavian countries use only what they need and don't try to sap the worlds resources so there is no need for an influx of immigrants to work for cheap".  Wrong again.  The reason is that Scandinavians run their country properly and do not go for the easy option of bringing in labour.  We have plenty of people to do the work here already but because of government incompetence they are either untrained or unmotivated to do a days work - hence the easy fix of immigration.  Also Britain is the country of choice for immigrants because they know they will get very well looked after.  Perhaps if we made it harder for them and looked after our own interests more like Scandinavia then that would not be the case.  I know that is not want you want to hear because it doesn't fit with what your stance but it is how it is.

What motivated expansion much more than your claim was fear of invasion.  The French, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese, amongst others, were all doing the same thing as us. Such was our close proximity geographically.  If we had not gone to the four corners of the world we would have been ultimately left technologically adrift and faced being slaughtered.  We were all in competition with each other after all, despite various alliances over time.

By the way we probably would have been fearful of invasion partly due to being pillaged by Scandinavians years before - just to make a point about your edited history and where you decide to start it from.  Do I hate Scandinavians for that?  No of course not.

The World Bank?  Yes, rich people.  Rich people whether they be from The US, Japan, England, Germany, Sweden or The UAE.  It is, and always has been, about rich and poor people, have and have nots - NOT nations, cultures and races.  I am so surprised such a history expert like yourself has not figured this one out yet.

Comment

See we have a different perspective on immigrants.  There are those who have the argument such as yourself by saying, well they being native brits and Americans are untrained or not willing to do the work.  Wrong.  Its that your people just like Americans have such a higher standard and living expectation no way in hell they are they going to take jobs with below standard income and poor health care coverage or no health care coverage that immigrants will take which is the case in the US for the vast majority of Latino immigrants.  It has nothing to do with "laziness" of Brits or Americans.

On expansion:
What motivated expansion was the depletion of resources and greed.  Although diplomacy is the first option used by expansionist.  When they discover they are technologically advantaged and feel culturally superior which is well documented in most historical literature, you begin to take than negotiate.

I agree, Europeans were slaughtering each other for hundreds of years before setting their eyes on weaker prey.  They built alliances often times through marriage but when the well ran dry they found a weaker link in the world chain.

One major example of why you are wrong on the fact that their motivation to expand was out of fear of each other, its clear you are not aware of the Berlin Conference of 1884.  I will help you my friend.

"General Act of the Berlin Conference, is often seen as the formalization of the Scramble for Africa. The conference ushered in a period of heightened colonial activity on the part of the European powers, while simultaneously eliminating most existing forms of African autonomy and self-governance....King Leopold II was able to convince France and Germany that common trade in Africa was in the best interests of all three countries. On the initiative of Portugal, Otto von Bismarck, German Chancellor, called on representatives of Austria–Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden-Norway (union until 1905), the Ottoman Empire, and the United States to take part in the Berlin Conference to work out policy. "

Doesn't sound like they were fearing each other here but more in collusion.

Examples of goal:
* Any fresh act of taking possession of any portion of the African coast would have to be notified by the power taking possession, or assuming a protectorate, to the other signatory powers.

* Africa was divided between the main powers of Europe..

Agenda -  The Scramble for Africa sped up after the Conference, since even within areas designated as their sphere of influence, the European powers still had to take possession under the Principle of Effectivity. In central Africa in particular, expeditions were dispatched to coerce traditional rulers into signing treaties, using force if necessary.

By 1902, 90% of all the land that makes up Africa was under European control."

That is why I disagree about your argument of why they expanded.

They felt superior to the point they felt there was no need for even war.  They sat in there palaces and carved up a whole continent.

Comment

Immigrants - I am sorry but you are wrong about the UK.  I won't speak for America but I will for the country I live in.  It comes down to poor and lazy government.  Ok, some Brits don't want to do the jobs that pay poor wages.  What is wrong is that as an alternative they don't do anything but sit on benefits.  Given the option of doing a crappy job or watching TV for the same income who can blame them - after all the only ones who do work for a medium wage (me) or less do it out of pride and the knowledge that they do their bit even though they are no better off financially.  So those who CHOOSE not to work are lazy. This is not a good way to run a country.  A) It makes the people who do work resentful of paying for feckless wasters getting it all for free, and B) requires bringing in millions of immigrants to do the work that our own population won't do because those immigrants aren't lazy and have to work because they don't get everything handed to them.  = lazy and poor govenment practice.  As a footnote there are immigrants that come here through various means that also milk the generous benefit system and this is even more ridiculous.

In Addition there are the jobs that do go to skilled people from abroad.  But surely you must agree that there is something fundamentally wrong if we have to bring in skills from abroad whilst 4 million people able to work don't.  I want to make it clear that in no way do I blame the immigrants themselves - I blame our government.

What you suggest - and it must be otherwise you don't make sense - is that Brits take only the best jobs and leave the rest, the unfilled ones, to immigrants.  If this was true then fine but it is not the case at all.  They take the option of living off the state with better healthcare than those who earn because they get everything for free (dental, prescription medicine etc on top of NHS that we all get).  So your whole argument is wrong for the UK.

Expansion - I do not deny greed and resources has a lot to do with it, hasn't it always.  Your example is good and proves a point (a point that at no time have I dismissed, merely expanded upon. And of course I am aware of the "Scramble for Africa".  The very fact you think you are educating me on things like this leads me to assume you are at stage one, like a teenager that has just discovered that people have done bad things in the past and you have made conclusions without further consideration) You are a few centuries late if you are talking about original motives for expansion.  But I will agree that it does prove that the established nations got rather used to the splendor of milking the resources of Africa and other parts of the world.  Something that I have never denied.  It is shameful.

By the way the "they" that you speak of are the few.  The "they" are not all the British people but are the powerful and rich few.  Can I point out that only a couple of decades later the British people were sent to the slaughter fighting the Germans.  Surely this highlights the fact that it is not the a national thing it is a rich and poor thing.  Please tell me you get this because you continue to ignore it.

By the way Moreno - you do frustrate the sh it out of me sometimes and do get under my skin but I have to say it is more enjoyable to debate with someone who is far from the moronic imbeciles that I have clashed swords with on here recently (you know the two).  I think perhaps we are not that far away in thought but just come at the subject from a slightly different angle.

Our empire did many great things, we were an innovator and had the most powerful army and naval force of the time. At the same time the empire in its time span did many detestable things that no Brit today should be proud of. The domination and massacre of countries we went to war with, the continued duration of slavery as well as political bullying of pracitically all other nations for a sustained period of time is nothing to look back on with pride and honour. The good things the empire did are in my opinion outweighed by the evils committed by our empire, the immense suffering of those within our empire is proof of that.

kddan

03 Nov 2009 17:19

Add a Comment

Not only that, but a lot of modern Brits seem to act like they're still an empire, they certainly seem to think that they're a much bigger deal on the world stage than their current situation would suggest. Former glory doesn't translate into current glory.

Cephus

03 Nov 2009 15:54

2 Comments

Go Cephus, spit it all out, just as fast as your vendictive hyperventilating little pumped up lungs will let you! Seems like you yanks have fluffed your lines so many times upon the world stage, you should be the last to criticise any empire. I think our master playwright GBS, had you lot nailed to the tree when he said 100% American, 99% IDIOT!

LordDaniel

03 Nov 2009 18:19

Comment

For the most part, countries benefited from being a part of their "commonwealth", apart from the loss of cultural identity.

It gave them a connection to Europe, involving them in world politics, and allowing them access to new technologies. The colonization helped to stabilize what are now quite successful (and independent) nations.

And, they're not exactly rubbing it in anybody's faces in politics now. Like with the Roman Empire, I think we've just moved on.

RoboHippo

04 Nov 2009 07:19

1 Comment

its clear your history is limited. Such a romanticized justification. There was a reason why these colonized countries rebelled.

moreno

04 Nov 2009 14:44

Comment

Trying to get a yank to flush their brainwashed minds out is only achieved by one with high levels of self-discipline and low reserves of self pity. However, moreno, there's definitely a more blurred distinction between giving some one like old Rusty time to get constructive results, rather than being jerked off by some little yanky pr***, sorry, Dick, Joe or Harry! Rusty it's a lesson well learned, but the theory is a d@mn sight easier than the practice...;-) Good try old boy!

LordDaniel

03 Nov 2009 18:04

12 Comments

I think brits have a blurred sense of reality. Call it delusions of grandeur. Rusty is not a debater anyway. I'm sure you meant, "old" literally. He is one of those, "Get off my lawn you darn kids" type of guy. Or he could just be you.

moreno

03 Nov 2009 18:27

Comment

Exactly what the yanks are doing now. Taught you everything you know. (It's 'privilege' by the way.)

RustyWater

03 Nov 2009 16:32

12 Comments

I know....wanted to see how many spelling nazis will post.

moreno

03 Nov 2009 16:37

Comment

Sign In

Sign Up?

Login and Debate!
Username:
Password:
Forgot your Password?

For and Against Recent Activity

Latest Responses

Latest Comments

5 minutes ago

I used to but i dont do it anymore cuz i got braces so it hurt every time i would but yea i miss biting them.. read more...

10 minutes ago

NAACP always blows things out of proportion read more...

15 minutes ago

You're hardly the worst anyway, death threats don't need swear words to be worse than anything you've ever said. read more...

20 minutes ago

I think books are better friends because they wont get mad at you and they dont have feelings.. But books wont walk away... read more...

23 minutes ago

I agree with this my friend showed me this website and ever since then i love this website.. read more...

Related Debates

	We Should Drill Holes In Alaska And Off Shore For Oil
	More Money Is Needed For Space Exploration
	We Are Actually Being Racist In Attempts To Become Anti-racist!
	It Is Moral To Take Pictures Of Starving Children In Africa Especially Since The Camera Probably Cost...
	The Veil Should Not Be Banned
	People Who Are Between The Ages Of 16 And 24 Years Should Be Forced To Take STD Tests And Make The Information...
	It Should Be Legal To Base Employement On Credit Ratings?
	Talking On Your Cell Phone While On A Date Is So Inconsiderate.
	It Is Possible For Someone To Logically And Reasonably Come To A Completely Different Conclusion Than...
	Welfare Is Obviously A "Good" Thing.

New Debates

	Is Halloween Better Then Christmas?
	They Should Relax The Language Censor A Bit.
	A Little Bit Of Flooding In England Shouldn't Be Called "flooding Of Biblical Proportions"
	H1N1: A Real Mystery
	Edward (vampire) Is Better Than Jacob (wolf)!! TWILIGHT!!
	There Is Nothing Remotely Attractive About Johnny Depp.
	There Will Never Be World Peace
	Degrassi Is A Good Show!!
	We Should Not Be Required To Learn Spanish In School.
	Islam Is Inherently More Pernicious Than Christianity