Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Do you have any concept of history? | |
Author: Frank (US) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 23:16:28 01/11/05 Tue In reply to: Curnoack 's message, "Tolerant race..." on 00:35:28 01/10/05 Mon Your history is terribly inaccurate Curnoack, While British rule can be argued to have oppressed Ireland for a long time...how the hell can u argue that Britain blew up Argentina?...the Falklands war was fought around the Falklands and the British aspirations of an Argentine Empire died nearly before the began around the napoleonic era i believe. Also Pakistan and India, while both offshoots of British India started b/c of dissent in the Indian National Congress and eventually escalated until the Muslims were moving to Pakistan (and Bangladesh, but we'll ignore for now) and Hindus moving to India...while the British certainly played on this, this was by no means a British act. As for China...I'm chinese and i can tell you that Britain had no part in "blowing it up" in the terms of ruining china, the Opium war, in which they invaded and took Hong Kong, didnt really ruin china...you might want to look toward Japan (pre WWII as well as WWII) Oh yes, while I'm not sure about the concentration camps, but the apartheid was instigated by the Boers under British control, and the British actually tried to rein them in somewhat, which is why apartheid became huge especially after the British left. In fact, check out Rise and Fall of the British Empire by Lawrence James, it ends with a quote by Nelson Mandela who praised Britain... Please know your history before you start spewing ur deluded nonsense [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Well said. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:59:14 01/11/05 Tue A) Britain bought Argentina, which is one of the reasons why they dislike us - we never annexed the country. B) Indian Muslims were killing each other for centuries before Brits even knew India existed - best look at the Abbassids and whatnot for an explanation for that. C) Ditto Ireland: the problem is that Papists and Protestants hate each other, not this or that particular British Government policy. D) Unless you are in to moral absolutes, I would be wary of defending the despotic Chinese empire in its competition with Britain, which, although far from perfect, can point at the success which we made of Hong Kong with pride. E) South Africa, my native land, was a mess because of the Boers. They founded the two Boer states which later went to war with the two British ones precisely BECAUSE we banned them from keeping slaves; and Cecil Rhodes, that bane of 'liberal' anti-colonialists, stood for and won the Prime Ministership of Cape Colony on the policy of allowing black South Africans the vote. We had to accept curtailing the black franchise as a condition for the Boers signing the treaty of Union after the Boer War. Bastards... calling me rooinekke and hans khaki and suchlike. Good for you, Frank. You show a nicer historical sense than most British people. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The Opium Wars and Moral Absolutes | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:59:52 01/12/05 Wed And if you are into moral absolutes, you could also ask how well the Chinese acquitted themselves in the opium wars relative to Britain. Brtiain fought the wars merely to avoid continued humiliation and unbearable corruption and discrimination in trade with China (I would have to concede this is a dubious reason for fighting a war, but it was a more legitimate reasoning in the C19th, and the US and France weren't far behind Britain in making the same demands and profiting from the Opium wars themselves). The Chinese, on the other hand, viewed anyone not from the Celestial Empire as barbarian ghosts with no rights or honour, and indeed, they seem to have viewed their own people in much the same light. The Chinese authorities regularly gave out orders for Chinese people to poison westerners or destroy their property - indiscriminately and en masse - as well as seizing produce and closing ports to trade or imposing arbitrary fines and taxes when it suited them. This was the background to the wars. Once the wars started British troops generally behaved with honour and fairness, although lootings and rapes did occur. The British smashed through Chinese defences time and again with hardly any casualties despite massively superior numbers and relatively sophisticated weaponry being pitted against them. Yet Chinese officials were so scared of failure and dismissive of foreigners they behaved as if each defeat were a victory. British delegations to make peace with the Chinese were regularly murdered and tortured, their treaties invariably ripped up before they could even be signed, yet in every city the British took they praised the bravery of its defenders and released the prisoners to return to their homes. The Chinese on the other hand murdered the civilian populations of each city (and committed suicide) rather than suffer the indignity of barbarian conquest. In contrast to Chinese atrocities against both their own people and British soldiers, officials, merchants and other civilians, the worst British 'atrocity' of the wars, often cited as one of the prime evils of British Imperialism, was the burning of the Summer Palace. Now while I admit that this was an act of cultural barbarism, I would make the following observations for others to ponder and take as they will; 1) the palace had already been trashed and looted by French troops and Chinese civilians days before the decision was taken to burn its remains, 2) the chinese had routinely failed to end the second war or respect treaties and persisted in dismissing and covering up British military successes 3) the burning of an empty and looted palace which was itself a symbol of a corrupt imperial elite is not a war crime. It does not constitute mass murder, or indeed the murder of one civilian or enemy combatant. Compare this to the carnage the British encountered in each city they entered, with women and children slaughtered by their own men and thrown into wells to poison the water. The British may have been the aggressors, but they were by far the more 'moral' combatants in a dirty war. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |