Britain, the worlds most historically evil regime ?

[Johnny Canuck3]

You do know that the Armada and Trafalgar were more than two centuries apart, don't you...?...

Yes, I do. I made the comment in reply to something about the Spanish and French Empires being equivalent or something.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

belguim congo small but perfectly evil even other colonisers thought they were over the top
BUT ROMAN EMPIRE WIN HANDS DOWN
INVASION MAYHEM CHECK PUT DRUIDS TO THE SWORD check (though that might actually be a plus point )
slave trading on a massive scale
gladiatorial games
started all the trouble in the middle east
cruifixations etc

'

 

[rhys gethin]

What is the point exactly of these grotesque guilt games about dead people supposed somehow to be 'our team'? Most people of all cultures, surely, behave like shits if there is benefit in it - or has some sort of 'behaving decently' gene now been discovered?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

What is the point exactly of these grotesque guilt games about dead people supposed somehow to be 'our team'? Most people of all cultures, surely, behave like shits if there is benefit in it - or has some sort of 'behaving decently' gene now been discovered?

No, the point is that when you british got the upper hand over everyone, you behaved especially execrably.

Others have been bad, too, but others, not as bad.

 

[Belushi]

Not true. The mongol empire started out with a lot of violence, but by the end, the mongol masters had assimilated a lot of the ways of the people they'd previously conquered.

Far as I can tell, you british didn't assimilate much from the NA Indians, or the Kenyans.

There was a lot more assimilation in the early days of the Empire, particularly in India; the notion that the Empire as some kind of civilising mission to the world is a later development of the Victorian period.

 

[untethered]

No, the point is that when you british got the upper hand over everyone, you behaved especially execrably.

Others have been bad, too, but others, not as bad.

That doesn't explain why so many former British colonies are proud of their association with Britain and express it in various ways, eg. through membership of the Commonwealth.

 

[Belushi]

No, the point is that when you british got the upper hand over everyone, you behaved especially execrably.

Others have been bad, too, but others, not as bad.

Did it? The British Empire was larger than any other; I'm not sure it was 'especially' worse in its treatment of its subjects.

 

[Fruitloop]

..and because this 'first capitalist nation' happened to create an empire that included much of the world's land mass, and many of its people, it ensured that capitalism was spread to the far corners of the globe.

That's the nature of capitalism though. isn't it, not some accidental coincidence.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

No, the point is that when you british got the upper hand over everyone, you behaved especially execrably.

If you impose today's morality on to the actions of people living 500-100 years ago. That is the real point (ie you can't).

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That doesn't explain why so many former British colonies are proud of their association with Britain and express it in various ways, eg. through membership of the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth exists because for a long time, there were close ties between the colonies and britain, not to mention good economic reasons for maintaining ties with britain. It's not such a big deal anymore.

British heritage is integral to the fabric of Canada. I don't know if that's something to be proud of, but it's certainly a fact. But that doesn't change the terrible things done by the british empire, to the native people of NA, for example.

 

[Belushi]

Your article indicates that the dutch empire at that time mostly consisted of the Spice Islands, taken from the Portuguese, while at that same time, the British Empire included the 13 colonies, as well as Upper and Lower Canada, in NA alone.

The Spice Islands were a much more valuable property than the North American Colonies during that period, as were the West Indies.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That's the nature of capitalism though. isn't it, not some accidental coincidence.

Capitalism piggybacked on the British Empire, the way that Christianity piggybacked on the Roman Empire.

 

[Fruitloop]

No, capitalism requires imperialism and primitive accumulation in order to survive.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The Spice Islands were a much more valuable property than the North American Colonies during that period, as were the West Indies.

Well, somebody must have thought that NA was valuable, since the British fought the americans when they tried to separate, and they fought the French for control of Canada.

How many major wars were fought over the Spice Islands?

 

[untethered]

British heritage is integral to the fabric of Canada. I don't know if that's something to be proud of, but it's certainly a fact. But that doesn't change the terrible things done by the british empire, to the native people of NA, for example.

But I imagine even the native Americans are glad now they live in a modern democracy. They wouldn't have organised that for themselves, would they?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If you impose today's morality on to the actions of people living 500-100 years ago. That is the real point (ie you can't).

That's true, and it's not. You have to wonder how good english christians reconciled enslaving others, or deliberately introducing disease in order to clear land tracts for english settlers.

 

[Belushi]

Well, somebody must have thought that NA was valuable, since the British fought the americans when they tried to separate, and they fought the French for control of Canada.

No ones said they werent valuable, they just werent as valuable as the Spice Islands or the West Indies.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

But I imagine even the native Americans are glad now they live in a modern democracy. They wouldn't have organised that for themselves, would they?

You don't know much about the life of the average native American, do you?

 

[Belushi]

or deliberately introducing disease in order to clear land tracts for english settlers

Got a link for that?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No ones said they werent valuable, they just werent as valuable as the Spice Islands or the West Indies.

Remind me; how many major wars were fought over the Spice Islands?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Got a link for that?

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html

 

[Spion]

Anyway, what's the body count for the British Empire vs the others? Any ideas anyone?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Anyway, what's the body count for the British Empire vs the others? Any ideas anyone?

I'll bet that like the americans, your predecessors didn't keep accurate track of the numbers of colonials, natives etc, that they were killing.

 

[untethered]

You don't know much about the life of the average native American, do you?

Good or bad, I imagine it has a great deal more to do with the actions of contemporary "non-native" Americans than historical Britons.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Good or bad, I imagine it has a great deal more to do with the actions of contemporary "non-native" Americans than historical Britons.

No, there is a direct link between the course of treatment of natives in colonial days, to the modern treatment, right down to things like the rampant child abuse that has occured in Anglican residential schools, in the past decades.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It started with depriving people of their land, and legislating them into non-person status, a condition that persisted for centuries, and is only recently being partly addressed.

 

[Belushi]

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html

Thanks Johnny, I was under the impression it was a myth.

 

[Spion]

I'll bet that like the americans, your predecessors didn't keep accurate track of the numbers of colonials, natives etc, that they were killing.

You might be right, or you may not be. I know there have been books like 'Late Victorian Holocausts' that have looked into this stuff. Anyone read it?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It includes the british christian tradition of destroying native religions and folkways due to their heathen, unchristian character, thus laying the groundwork for the social disintegration that continues to this day.

 

[untethered]

No, there is a direct link between the course of treatment of natives in colonial days, to the modern treatment, right down to things like the rampant child abuse that has occured in Anglican residential schools, in the past decades.

What is this "direct link"? Why can't North Americans take responsibility for themselves?

You wanted it. You got it.