epic office quote application there

James wrote: Trying to paint the entirety of imperial history as one big juggernought of oppression and deliberate tyranny just smacks of sensationalist leftism.

Whatever the original intentions of the British were doesn't make any difference to the outcome which WAS a juggernought of oppression and deliberate tyranny. Stop looking at this debate through Union Flag tinted specs. What the British did was wrong and making excuses for it just sounds pathetic.

Extending on Boovs point, you ignore the fact that Britain went to these places believing themselves to be superior in more than just aggressive potency. They thought they were 'civilising barbarians' and the like. This was the excuse given by all imperialists, that they were paternal figures guiding nations to culture and intelligence - if a few thousand people get slaughtered along the way... well, that's a crying shame.

Britain believed it had a right to pillage and exploit because it thought it was the most powerful nation and, it believed, it had god on its side. You seem to justify their actions as if it was innocence in ignorance. Unless I've misinterpreted you, in which case, I apologise.

that's how i interpreted it aswell.

Not got time to post today, so tired.

just wanted to say this thread fucking rules!

The point is that we were the most powerful nation, and if you look at it through 18th-19th century "specs" we were "civilising" barbarian peoples! It may be hard to comprehend, but when you encounter a race of 'savages' for the first time, who have seemingly achieved nothing more than perfect spear throwing and witch doctery throughout the millenia in which Western civilisation has flourished, how can your presence be anything but a "civilising" one?? I was not summarising my opinion of aboriginal people there, I'm simply trying to describe how easy it is to look on the "civilising mission" issue in a very one-sided way. Surely Western countries would see it almost as an injustice NOT to introduce natives to modern technologies, medicines, the 'right' religion, education, etc. etc.

Do you get my point?

Similarly with missionary work - it was seen as a BENEVOLENT act! I personally don't support it at all, but don't you see that missionaries wouldn't have left the comforts of domestic Britain to risk poverty and potentially death-by-pagan if they were motivated by "oppression and deliberate tyranny" rather than a genuine sense of duty in terms of salvation?

It pisses me off to be accused of seeing things through "tinted specs", when you lot seem at least as incapable of reading anything other than malicious intent in British overseas expansion.

The intent may not have been malicious but the actions were. I mean, could you not accept Hitler's actions by the very same standards?:

He believed the German people were the best, he was trying to keep them pure. Our petty bias of seeing the Holocaust as some deliberate act to kill people is ridiculous. To Hitler, these weren't people!

The above statement is not a controversial summation of the final solution but we can still judge as terrible, unjust and unworthy of forgiveness. By the same standard, I don't think we should make allowances for this country's past actions. There is a debt to pay for previous wrongs.

By the way, I don't think the comparison is perfectly apt. Hitler's actions were deeply rooted in prejudice and the desire for persecution. Britain's crimes were based on arrogance, a lack of humanity and greed.

well it pisses me off to be described as a "sensationalist leftie". The British Empire, unlike the Spanish, wasn't directly concerned with spreading Christianity. Hence why nations such as India didn't turn Christian. Religion wasn't a priority of the British who were more motivated by nationalism and and greed. Of course these things seemed more reasonable in the 19th century (although there was opposition to it even then) but that doesn't mean you should make excuses for imperialism now! British oppression continued way into the 20th century and is responsible for a great deal of the problems we face today so it's not like it's "all in the past" and we can just shrug our shoulders and make excuses for it.

STD_Caps wrote:The intent may not have been malicious but the actions were. I mean, could you not accept Hitler's actions by the very same standards?:

He believed the German people were the best, he was trying to keep them pure. Our petty bias of seeing the Holocaust as some deliberate act to kill people is ridiculous. To Hitler, these weren't people!

Not to mention that it wasn't Hitler's original aim to exterminate the Jews, they just kind of stumbled upon the "solution".

James wrote:Feel free to 'have a bash' you tosser, but try doing so with more words than I can count on one hand, not including "fuck off" and "cunt".

But that's exactly what you did... ? Remember? as in "Your a cunt, Fuck off".

But yeah, no point getting low, eh? Not every post has to be thought out to the point of the greatest most thought provoking statement. I was simply expressing my joy and suprise at the response. Thanks for the esteem boost though as usual

William Morton wrote:

James wrote:Feel free to 'have a bash' you tosser, but try doing so with more words than I can count on one hand, not including "fuck off" and "cunt".

But that's exactly what you did... ? Remember? as in "Your a cunt, Fuck off".

I only did that to tell you to fuck off with posts like the one you made. Anyway, enough of this rampant persiflage.

'Boo hoo! I'm seventeen and have seen Bowling for Columbine. I want to highlight the ills of society because I've nothing better to complain about.'

I didn't start this thread.

Do you think Britain would be any better off today had the NHS not been created?

Selective reading much? I stated very clearly that the NHS is a brilliant thing. However it's current situation is worse than dire.

http://elt.britcoun.org.pl/elt/h_nhs.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/ ... h.politics

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/oct/01/1

What has Belgium ever given the world? The First World War? New Zealand? Lord of the Rings? Australia?

This boils down to a persons interpretation of what makes a country a good place. I don't think past events or inventions make somewhere a better or worse place to live so I don't really see your point.

The reason our standard of living is supposedly the worst in Western Europe is that we're all pie-munching lard-arses. France and Germany aside, none of the countries you list there have a modicum of sway in international relations vis-a-vis the UK. Sure, the UK isn't perfect, but we have Emmerdale and The Smiths.

Food, housing and living costs/bills make our standard of living considerably lower than comparable countries economically. And our Nominal/Per Capita balance is pretty off.

Metal Iain wrote:Stop being a fucking fanny.

Likewise.

No one wants to read all that mate.

James wrote:No one wants to read all that mate.

I'm sick of all this 'oo back that up you're just a stupid kid' crap in this thread.

If you don't want to read it then fuck off then. You can't have it both ways.

Backing up your points doesn't mean Copy and Pasting pageloads of data, just explain your own statements a bit; shouldn't be too hard if you say your parents are NHS workers.