Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

Did you miss the part where that British empire murdered millions and millions of innocent men, women and children?
 

When I read shíte like this I’m reminded how apathetic and downright dangerous the average voter is.

 

 

The British had the most dangerous method of Colonialsm.

The Portuguese tried to entice the population with good engineering, the Spanish with the Church, the Germans with their culture, the Belgians with their actuarial methods, the Americans with our commerce, the French with the military.

But the British, they send in their cartographers. They purposefully set up borders and jurisdictional boundaries designed to get the natives to kill each other off, and while the blood flowed, the British extracted the wealth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 265
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

RIP. He served his country and the extended Commonwealth until his dying day. Never complained about it and just got on with it. As a British citizen I will mourn his passing with respect. Clearl

He was a veteran and a sailor, counts for a lot in my book. Fair winds, Prince Phillip. Unless the person was truly, heinously, evil and malevolent, speaking ill of the dead is poor form. I don't

Philip Mountbatten, rest his soul. There was a story years ago, sailing at Cowes and Prince Philip on port tack. Starboard tacker hails. Prince does not alter course, sails on. Starboard tacker duck

Posted Images

5 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

Did you miss the part where that British empire murdered millions and millions of innocent men, women and children?
 

When I read shíte like this I’m reminded how apathetic and downright dangerous the average voter is.

 

 

The British had the most dangerous method of Colonialsm.

The Portuguese tried to entice the population with good engineering, the Spanish with the Church, the Germans with their culture, the Belgians with their actuarial methods, the Americans with our commerce, the French with the military. We all left a mess, in various degrees.

But the British, they sent in their cartographers. They purposefully set up borders and jurisdictional boundaries designed to get the natives to kill each other off, and while the blood flowed by design, the British extracted the wealth.

The English people somehow managed to create a nation of remarkable culture, science, intelligence and art, and yet for some odd reason, they not only allowed a family of thugs and miscreants to run the place, but they continue to celebrate this family as a cultural touchstone ...

2048169394_ScreenShot2021-04-11at4_07_30PM.png.6fe04f356d0e5d3c16323fdc75abc116.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed Lada said:

I was just getting comfortable on my front porch to enjoy the beautiful weather and a gin and tonic and a whole shitload of fuckers are not only running across my lawn, but taking a shit on it too.  I have a couple of large Labs to clean up after already, I don't need any more shit on my fucking lawn.  Now get the fuck off of my lawn and stay off of it.  And take your shit with you.

 

Off the subject of politics, but I re-discovered something with G&T's.

First off, I'm a believer in not fucking with the Gin and Tonic. I find it to be one of the most perfectly balanced cocktails ever invented. Yes, it can be improved a bit by getting one's hands on pharmaceutical-grade quinine and making one's own tonic with seltzer, simple syrup and quinine, the commercial tonics (even Fever Tree) just don't put anywhere near enough quinine into the tonic water. I've found that BC Aspirin Powder makes a really decent stand-in for the quinine, but it's just still not the same as real quinine, the bitter tastes slightly different, and the "high" from aspirin isn't the same as from quinine.

So most of the time, I just grab regular old blue collar tonic water, Canada Dry, even the store brand, it's really so similar that it barely matters. And the quality of the gin shouldn't be too high. Yes, an expensive gin is necessary for a memorable martini, because the gin is going into the martini bare-balls, it has to carry the show. But in the Gin and Tonic, the gin is really - TRADITIONALLY - a supporting player. The star of the G&T is the quinine, that's why the drink exists. So for a G&T, a half-decent, inexpensive dry gin with a bit of chemical bite seems to bind better with the quinine in my opinion.

But here's the thing, you're going to fucking curse at me when you read this, but I swear, there is something to this. I've tried it and I believe that I might be onto somehting.

Before I even start on the drink, I put a single sprig of fresh mint in the shot glass to measure the gin. Then I pour the gin and let it sit. While I'm getting the glass, the ice, slicing the lime, getting the tonic (and possibly doctoring it with BC aspirin powder or quinine if I can get it, which is nearly impossible these days), the gin seems to extract some of the phenols from the mint.

Then, when I pour the gin into the glass, (of course I leave the depleted mint in the shot glass, since I am not a godless heathen) the drink just seems to come alive a little bit more. One other method, is to take the slice of lime and rub it on a big leaf of mint before throwing it into the ice and then adding the gin and tonic on top of that. I never understand why anyone puts the lime in last, it never tastes as good as when the mechanical action of the carbonation hits it from the bottle.

So there you go Len, just a tiny hint of mint, it seems to open up the botanicals in the gin. I don't know why or how it works, but it seems to work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed Lada said:

 

What does that mean and who are/were the competitors?  Do you mean to say the white man's attempted domination of the world was inevitable, and thank god that the Brits did it and not the Spaniards, or god forbid the Germans?

 

 

 

I am appalled at how many members of the royal family apparently paid members here to defend the indefensible.  It's fucking appalling I tell ya.

I was just getting comfortable on my front porch to enjoy the beautiful weather and a gin and tonic and a whole shitload of fuckers are not only running across my lawn, but taking a shit on it too.  I have a couple of large Labs to clean up after already, I don't need any more shit on my fucking lawn.  Now get the fuck off of my lawn and stay off of it.  And take your shit with you.

 

"A gin and tonic"...Oh Dear Old Chap! something from the Brits you do admire?...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gin_and_tonic#:~:text=British officers in India in,the sweet concoction made sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mambo Kings said:

Im sorry you see Phillip as a symbol.   Im sorry that you see the British History as being all bad.

That Island and its remnant of Empire and Commonwealth kept Nazi facism at bay. We should at least give them that. We should thank Phillip and all the "great generation" for that contribution.

I am not a royalist but I did the Duke of Edinburgh Award program 45 years ago and it meant something to be that he supported that kind of Britain. 

And it would mean a whole lot more if he hadn't spent 75 years symbolizing the other kind of Britain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cristoforo said:

Except it’s the most important ‘industry’ England still has.  They probably stilL bring in more tourist money than they cost. Otherwise they would be gone. 
 

as Philip said when told England was once  running in the red ‘Oh dear I may have to give up polo’ 

Are you just making the shit up as you go along or are you just this ignorant of the facts?
 

Tourism (The category that revenues from or because of the monarchy would fall under) isn’t in even the top 10 of British industries 

https://primeofficespace.co.uk/latest/top-ten-industries-in-uk/

 

But, even if it was, there is nothing to suggest that tourism to the UK would take a major hit to its bottom line because of the ending of monarchy. 
To suggest that Great Britain has nothing to offer a tourist other than to see and gawk at the monarchy is absurd.

The country is rich in history and monuments and castles and museums and other sites to see besides gawking at a bunch of inbred’s.

 

 


 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, El Mariachi said:

They're just short in one department however......

FB_IMG_1583450440446.jpg

Naw, even the food is way more diverse over there these days.

Last time I was home in Ireland I was shocked and pleasantly surprised to find authentic South American empanadas being sold by a street vendor near Nuns Island in Galway.


 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, El Mariachi said:

Fuking seriously? We just got done 'training' our local 7 am 'burrito gal' a few months ago on the beauty of learning how to make a proper empanada....and she fuking nailed inside of 2 weeks. So four times a week, for 67 cents a pop....it's a most fuktabulousy Mexican version of a great Argentine empanada. And her homemade salsa? It's like doing two huge lines of triple spicy orange coke. If THAT shit doesn't wake you up? Then you're probably in a g-damn coma......:lol:

FB_IMG_1615309499954.jpg

Yup,

Two summers ago I was home and I was walking ahead of the missus heading out to Salthill reminiscing about the old misspent days of my youth when next thing I heard the babbling in Spanish. I looked back to see My wife had struck up a conversation with the vendor who was Peruvian if I recall correctly. Coincidentally the lady was vending just a stone’s throw from the famous Spanish Arch.

The empanadas were ok but nothing like what my wife makes. (She’s South American )

 

As a whole though, the culinary delights of the UK and Ireland have improved exponentially in the last 30 or 40 years. The days of bacon and cabbage eight days a week or over, thankfully.

:-)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cristoforo said:

Why are you equating all things ‘British’ with one particular demented member of the current royal house?

Condemning a specific racist, xenophobic misogynistic, cousin fucker  has nothing to do with the historical cultural contributions of the English people.

What a silly ass you are. 
 

 

 

 

I agree. British imperialism can hardly be blamed on the house of Windsor. Liz is a German and Phil is a Danish wog.

Randy Andy is a chip off the old block however. A real root rat!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, El Mariachi said:

They're just short in one department however......

FB_IMG_1583450440446.jpg

The UK's national dish is now a Chicken Balti.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

No they didn’t.

They would have been destroyed but for the Ruskies and the Yanks.

The Yanks in particular sent hardware and financial support etc. to the British long before they (US) officially entered the war and the British themselves did fuck all after Hitler invaded Poland other than “declare war” until their hand was forced.

It

It wasn't for free we Paid for it, we finished paying for your assistance in 2004..

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LB 15 said:

I agree. British imperialism can hardly be blamed on the house of Windsor. Liz is a German and Phil is a Danish wog.

Phil was Greek. He had Danish royal blood as well but that doesn't mean much with the Euro royals - they are all cousins - or closer.

Most of the current Euro royals have Victoria in their background.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Phil was Greek. He had Danish royal blood as well but that doesn't mean much with the Euro royals - they are all cousins - or closer.

Most of the current Euro royals have Victoria in their background.

Word has it that quite a few of them had a bit of Phil in them as well at various times.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having visited Britain many times for work and tourism with family and friends, just my 2 cents as an American.  Given the costs and hassles of travel it's not just about what is in Britain (or anywhere else) but what is uniquely interesting about the British experience of it as opposed to anywhere else.

  • Speaking English (even with some twists) makes Britain an easy first international destination for Americans.  But English is very common in Iceland, Netherlands, Singapore, Italy, etc.  And even in Germany it's easy to get by with a mix of basic German and basic English.
  • The monarchy (and its related stuff) is behind much of the attraction.  The gang wants to see the palace and the Tower.  We didn't go to see the Pickle and the Shard.  Like Cinderella's castle in the Disney Parks, it's the thing folks think about.
  • Art museums are all over, and the Louvre, US National Gallery, Uffizi, and the Rijksmuseum and VanGogh are fine examples.  I would not personally trek to the UK just to see art.
  • Personally I like Windsor, though seeing American fast food shops outside the gate is a bit of a drag.
  • Post Brexit will see how that impacts business travel versus now going to the EU.
  • Many Americans have some Irish ancestors and thus some interest in the island of Ireland (yes I know it's not England) but recent unrest in NI may give some pause if it spreads.  
  • Castles are interesting, but a vestige of the whole monarchy feudalism thing.
  • As a golfer, a round or 2 in Scotland would be nice, but it would be a bit of a hassle compared to just playing a links course here in the US.
  • I suppose Scotch whisky distilleries are unique to Scotland, and they are nice, but at some point when you've visited a couple that's probably enough.  
  • My BA flights force me to take a bus from the plane to get to the terminal at LHR.  Then a very long walk but at least there is coffee when you exit customs and immigration.  Last thing I need after a long overnight flight.
  • Brighton and Portsmouth are interesting day trips, again in part due to Nelson's ship, which arguably links back to the monarchy warring with some other monarchy.  But similar experiences are available elsewhere.
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Among your many failings, apparently reading is near the top, right next to subtlety of thought.

Where did I say or even imply that it was a good thing?

I said it was better than its competitors.

As someone noted upthread, there are many of the most advanced nations that grew out of that empire.

Did any colonies of other empires ever gain their independence by asking nicely?

I hope you read your ballots more closely than you do posts here.

I think you are showing a Brit-bias here. In Canada, and other Commonwealth countries I assume, we were brought up with the belief that the Brits did it better with no clear evidence of this. You can make a good case that the French did it better in many parts of the world. Consider the French bits of the Caribbean compared to the formerly British bits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

I think you are showing a Brit-bias here. In Canada, and other Commonwealth countries I assume, we were brought up with the belief that the Brits did it better with no clear evidence of this. You can make a good case that the French did it better in many parts of the world. Consider the French bits of the Caribbean compared to the formerly British bits.

So - you want to compare *current* French colonial possessions with *former* British colonial possessions?

Is that good logic in your mind?

Perhaps you should ask the Algerians or the Vietnamese for their opinions on French colonial policies, After all, just like the British, they packed up quietly and went home when asked, didn't they?

FKT

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

No they didn’t.

They would have been destroyed but for the Ruskies and the Yanks.

The Yanks in particular sent hardware and financial support etc. to the British long before they (US) officially entered the war and the British themselves did fuck all after Hitler invaded Poland other than “declare war” until their hand was forced.

It was the French who, despite how they were portrayed by historians who first went to the defense of Poland.

...

If you want to thank anyone, thank the average grunt, be he English, Irish, Russian, French or Polish or whom ever, who twice within a few short decades was forced to fight to the death because of the ignorance and arrogance of the dastardly ruling classes of Europe and the rest of the world who caused those wars and of which Philip was a part.

The Brits did send their army to France in 1939, remember all that Dunkirk stuff after things went pear-shaped. My father was part of a combined British/Canadian force that was sent to France (Brest and then inland) just after Dunkirk to try to rally French forces. When it became apparent there was no rallying to do they also escaped back to England.

I think the situations of WWI and WWII are entirely different except that WWII became pretty much inevitable because of the criminal shortcomings of the Treaty of Versailles and not just in Europe, consider how it might have lead to the Communists taking over in both China and Viet Nam. I agree about your comments about WWI but not WWII. My father arrived in France at the beginning of 1917 at the age of 15 1/2. They didn't check birth certificates when you joined up and they needed the manpower (boy power?).

Highly recommended book about the T of V. All of MacMillan's books are wonderful. Coincidentally, she is great grand-daughter of David Lloyd George.

Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World by Margaret MacMillan

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

After all, just like the British, they packed up quietly and went home when asked, didn't they?

Well in defense of the French (I can't believe I just said that), they did pack up quietly and leave with their tails between their legs after General Giap asked nicely for them to leave at Dien Bien Phu.   

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

So - you want to compare *current* French colonial possessions with *former* British colonial possessions?

Is that good logic in your mind?

Perhaps you should ask the Algerians or the Vietnamese for their opinions on French colonial policies, After all, just like the British, they packed up quietly and went home when asked, didn't they?

FKT

I think it is simplistic to say that colonial power A is always good and B is not. In general, colonialism was and is a very bad thing but within that rubric you can see gradations. The British generally left their possessions post-WWII because they had little choice. They were in no position to stay by force or by economics. There were exceptions - Malaya and the Falklands come to mind where they employed force. In general, the Brits left their former colonies ill-prepared for independence. Don't get me started on Hong Kong. Obviously, you cannot defend French actions in Indo-China and Algeria, but in many places the French prepared their possessions better. They also chose to keep a variety of colonies (Martinique, St Martin, Reunion, etc) as parts of France. At times they have sent troops to protect former colonies from external threats, happening in Chad now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

I think it is simplistic to say that colonial power A is always good and B is not. In general, colonialism was and is a very bad thing but within that rubric you can see gradations. The British generally left their possessions post-WWII because they had little choice. They were in no position to stay by force or by economics. There were exceptions - Malaya and the Falklands come to mind where they employed force. In general, the Brits left their former colonies ill-prepared for independence. Don't get me started on Hong Kong. Obviously, you cannot defend French actions in Indo-China and Algeria, but in many places the French prepared their possessions better. They also chose to keep a variety of colonies (Martinique, St Martin, Reunion, etc) as parts of France. At times they have sent troops to protect former colonies from external threats, happening in Chad now.

What you say is pretty much true.  The problem is that the European powers took it upon themselves to rape the world.  They inflicted a tremendous amount of damage that may never be repaired and stole uncountable amounts of money by exploiting the resources of their colonies.  And the thing that is equally appalling is they have never been held accountable for their actions.  The Nazis were put on trial in Nurnberg and 10 of them were executed.  It's too late now, but there should have been similar trials for the European colonial powers, especially Great Britain.  The Brits pulled off the greatest heist in history and have never been held accountable for it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

The Brits did send their army to France in 1939, remember all that Dunkirk stuff after things went pear-shaped. My father was part of a combined British/Canadian force that was sent to France (Brest and then inland) just after Dunkirk to try to rally French forces. When it became apparent there was no rallying to do they also escaped back to England.

I think the situations of WWI and WWII are entirely different except that WWII became pretty much inevitable because of the criminal shortcomings of the Treaty of Versailles and not just in Europe, consider how it might have lead to the Communists taking over in both China and Viet Nam. I agree about your comments about WWI but not WWII. My father arrived in France at the beginning of 1917 at the age of 15 1/2. They didn't check birth certificates when you joined up and they needed the manpower (boy power?).

Highly recommended book about the T of V. All of MacMillan's books are wonderful. Coincidentally, she is great grand-daughter of David Lloyd George.

Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World by Margaret MacMillan

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to diminish in any way the horrific sacrifices made by the average British, French, Canadian or Polish grunt etc. I salute your father and all the fathers who fought in those wars. But that doesn’t give us permission to rewrite history and the simple fact of the matter is that the British were only a cog in the machinery of the allied forces who ultimately defeated the Axis.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sea warrior said:

But that doesn’t give us permission to rewrite history and the simple fact of the matter is that the British were only a cog in the machinery of the allied forces who ultimately defeated the Axis.

And a pretty small cog at that.  

Except for the king.  he kept a stiff upper lip and stayed in London during the blitz to assure the hoi polloi that everything would be fine.  Probably the strain of that lip stiffening is what killed him a few years after the war.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

What you say is pretty much true.  The problem is that the European powers took it upon themselves to rape the world.  They inflicted a tremendous amount of damage that may never be repaired and stole uncountable amounts of money by exploiting the resources of their colonies.  And the thing that is equally appalling is they have never been held accountable for their actions.  The Nazis were put on trial in Nurnberg and 10 of them were executed.  It's too late now, but there should have been similar trials for the European colonial powers, especially Great Britain.  The Brits pulled off the greatest heist in history and have never been held accountable for it.  

I think you are being euro-centric to the extreme. Throughout history powerful nations have taken advantage of weaker, less-organized neighbours both near and far. You can see it from Asia (Genghis Khan being only the best known example) to Africa (the takeover of what became South Africa by the Zulus), to South America (Inca Empire). China is (re)building its empire today. Remember that 'China' literally means 'Middle Kingdom'. In the past the Chinese divided the world into three categories of peoples - them, near barbarians (people similar to Chinese) and far barbarians (everyone else). All barbarians were considered inferior and subject to Chinese dominance. A fascinating event happened in 1793 when the Brits send their first mission to China. Barbarians visiting China were expected to kowtow (kneel and put their foreheads on the ground) to the Emperor. The Dutch and Portuguese who were there first followed the custom while the British representative refused to do so in a clear clash of a rising empire and one that would soon be in decline - the Qing Dynasty in the 19th century with the Opium Wars, etc.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

What you say is pretty much true.  The problem is that the European powers took it upon themselves to rape the world.  They inflicted a tremendous amount of damage that may never be repaired and stole uncountable amounts of money by exploiting the resources of their colonies.  And the thing that is equally appalling is they have never been held accountable for their actions.  The Nazis were put on trial in Nurnberg and 10 of them were executed.  It's too late now, but there should have been similar trials for the European colonial powers, especially Great Britain.  The Brits pulled off the greatest heist in history and have never been held accountable for it.  

Not to diminish the Brit bashing or bashing of the larger region, but this isn't a group or group of groups problem.  This is humanity and what it does.  There are very few groups of humans, cultures, countries, or any other classification human gathering that haven't been ... inhumane as we currently define it.  Some groups gain advantages for periods of time and do things on a larger scale or through different means or have kept better records of their horribleness, but humans are not what we would like to think they are.  Humans are tribal and vicious, greedy, vain, petty, etc., etc. You can look at the histories of southeast Asia, Asia, India (if you consider it a subcontinent), sub-Saharan Africa, North America (before and after the whiteys showed up), Central and South America, etc.  you'll see the same deplorable things.  Those who learned to sail and navigate expanded more quickly and in different ways than those that had to do their evil over land, but the same things happen.  In the last 100 years or so, the tools and methods have changed, but the game is the same.  More damage can now be done with the press of button (missiles or money).  If you throw in the horrors performed under the guise of religion and the story gets even more deplored - yet this is all carried out by humans not the god(s) they claim to represent.  I hesitate to call out examples as it will distract from the fact that it's not the group(s) in whatever example, it's humans doing this and it's not unique to any grouping.  Just some are more prolific than others at a given time.

One of the only reasons to watch The Return of the Jedi is to listen the exchange between Obi-Wan and Luke.  After Luke asks why he was lied to about his dad really being the bad-ass Vader and not some chump who got taken out by Vader, Obi-Wan's response was ""[…] what I told you was true, from a certain point of view. […] You're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

Every culture applies this "certain point of view" and 99 out of 100 times the (currently) oppressed would have done as bad or worse than the oppressor being referenced if circumstances enabled them.

Since I've stumbled into science fiction, I'll end with this quote from one of the Star Trek iterations where "Q" referred to humans as "being a grievously savage child-race."

On that uplifting note about humanity, I'll allow you all to return to bashing countries, cultures, and people - including me.  Unless you'll be the one who knows enough anthropology to call out the one of the few exceptions which are usually a group that is somehow isolated from the rest of us (and lacks historical records that would otherwise expose prior nastiness).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Snaggletooth said:

eskimoes

Perhaps, but they're prime suspects in the mystery of why the Vikings got wiped out of Greenland.

Also, they fall into the small group category and do not live in large groupings.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed Lada said:

And a pretty small cog at that.  

Except for the king.  he kept a stiff upper lip and stayed in London during the blitz to assure the hoi polloi that everything would be fine.  Probably the strain of that lip stiffening is what killed him a few years after the war.

I actually had typed “small cog” initially but decided against using it in order avoid insulting or being perceived as insulting the contributions of the poster’s father because that was and is not my intention.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, PurpleOnion said:

Not to diminish the Brit bashing or bashing of the larger region, but this isn't a group or group of groups problem.  This is humanity and what it does.  There are very few groups of humans, cultures, countries, or any other classification human gathering that haven't been ... inhumane as we currently define it.  Some groups gain advantages for periods of time and do things on a larger scale or through different means or have kept better records of their horribleness, but humans are not what we would like to think they are.  Humans are tribal and vicious, greedy, vain, petty, etc., etc. You can look at the histories of southeast Asia, Asia, India (if you consider it a subcontinent), sub-Saharan Africa, North America (before and after the whiteys showed up), Central and South America, etc.  you'll see the same deplorable things.  Those who learned to sail and navigate expanded more quickly and in different ways than those that had to do their evil over land, but the same things happen.  In the last 100 years or so, the tools and methods have changed, but the game is the same.  More damage can now be done with the press of button (missiles or money).  If you throw in the horrors performed under the guise of religion and the story gets even more deplored - yet this is all carried out by humans not the god(s) they claim to represent.  I hesitate to call out examples as it will distract from the fact that it's not the group(s) in whatever example, it's humans doing this and it's not unique to any grouping.  Just some are more prolific than others at a given time.

One of the only reasons to watch The Return of the Jedi is to listen the exchange between Obi-Wan and Luke.  After Luke asks why he was lied to about his dad really being the bad-ass Vader and not some chump who got taken out by Vader, Obi-Wan's response was ""[…] what I told you was true, from a certain point of view. […] You're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

Every culture applies this "certain point of view" and 99 out of 100 times the (currently) oppressed would have done as bad or worse than the oppressor being referenced if circumstances enabled them.

Since I've stumbled into science fiction, I'll end with this quote from one of the Star Trek iterations where "Q" referred to humans as "being a grievously savage child-race."

On that uplifting note about humanity, I'll allow you all to return to bashing countries, cultures, and people - including me.  Unless you'll be the one who knows enough anthropology to call out the one of the few exceptions which are usually a group that is somehow isolated from the rest of us (and lacks historical records that would otherwise expose prior nastiness).

That has to be the worst rationalization I've ever heard.  So what you are saying is since everybody does it, it's OK.  It's just a modified "I was just following orders" defense.  I am a cynical old bastard but I still like to think that humans can do better.

But when somebody gets guidance in their life from a science fiction movie...

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

I think you are being euro-centric to the extreme. Throughout history powerful nations have taken advantage of weaker, less-organized neighbours both near and far. You can see it from Asia (Genghis Khan being only the best known example) to Africa (the takeover of what became South Africa by the Zulus), to South America (Inca Empire). China is (re)building its empire today. Remember that 'China' literally means 'Middle Kingdom'. In the past the Chinese divided the world into three categories of peoples - them, near barbarians (people similar to Chinese) and far barbarians (everyone else). All barbarians were considered inferior and subject to Chinese dominance. A fascinating event happened in 1793 when the Brits send their first mission to China. Barbarians visiting China were expected to kowtow (kneel and put their foreheads on the ground) to the Emperor. The Dutch and Portuguese who were there first followed the custom while the British representative refused to do so in a clear clash of a rising empire and one that would soon be in decline - the Qing Dynasty in the 19th century with the Opium Wars, etc.

Ahh, another 'Everyone does it' defense.

Do you like Star War movies too?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sea warrior said:

I actually had typed “small cog” initially but decided against using it in order avoid insulting or being perceived as insulting the contributions of the poster’s father because that was and is not my intention.

 

The small cog I am referring to is Great Britain.  Not any individual.  Well, except prince Phil maybe.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

I think you are showing a Brit-bias here. In Canada, and other Commonwealth countries I assume, we were brought up with the belief that the Brits did it better with no clear evidence of this. You can make a good case that the French did it better in many parts of the world. Consider the French bits of the Caribbean compared to the formerly British bits.

Name some non-British former colonies that are as successful as Canada, America, Oz, NZ, HK etc.

If you want to know what a really nasty colonial power was like, check out Belgium's record.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Name some non-British former colonies that are as successful as Canada, America, Oz, NZ, HK etc.

If you want to know what a really nasty colonial power was like, check out Belgium's record.

Belgium didn't have nearly the amount of colonies as the Brits did.

How about asking people in India, China, and South Africa. Nobody was as nasty to so many for so long as the Brits, to loosely paraphrase another nasty Englishman.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

That has to be the worst rationalization I've ever heard.  So what you are saying is since everybody does it, it's OK.  It's just a modified "I was just following orders" defense.  I am a cynical old bastard but I still like to think that humans can do better.

But when somebody gets guidance in their life from a science fiction movie...

Chill out.  Take a few breaths and re-read what I wrote. Or don't. It wasn't a rationalization of the behavior nor was it an attack of your seeming hatred of the British and the fact that the rest of the world hasn't held them accountable for their pillaging of the world's resources during their period of power. 

What part of my statements gave you the idea that I thought it was good behavior or even OK behavior?  I think I even upset my 9th grade English teach by using variants of the word deplore twice in a paragraph.

I used quotes from science fiction because, being a fictional existence, I thought it would have prevented people from going off on a tangent defending/attacking whatever culture/country I referenced.  You've proven to me the folly of that approach.  If you prefer, I could quote Plato, Socrates, Lao Tzu, Kung Tzu, Mencius, etc., but you would probably go on a rant about the Greeks or Chinese (or how the Brits pillaged the Parthenon or about British opium shenanigans in China)

Also, where did you get the idea that I was defending the Brits, their royal family, or anyone else?  Perhaps you me have me confused with others.

I'm glad you think that humans can do better.  I'd like to too.  Experience and various versions of history have told me otherwise.

I'm unwilling to invest the time to pull the exact quote from the interview on youtube, but I'll paraphrase what Frank Zappa said to Sandi Freeman in 1981 after she expressed exasperation about his view on some element of society saying she would hate to think that way.  His response was along the lines of: "you would hate to think like me and find out you were right".  Or ,if you want a more accurate quote from another point in his life, I'll offer this: “I like to watch the news, because I don't like people very much and when you watch the news ... if you ever had an idea that people were really terrible, you could watch the news and know that you're right.”

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Name some non-British former colonies that are as successful as Canada, America, Oz, NZ, HK etc.

If you want to know what a really nasty colonial power was like, check out Belgium's record.

I would not defend Belgium for a second. As to your list of former British colonies I would agree about Canada, Oz and NZ. The US left in an unfriendly way of course. All of these countries have a certain whiteness in common. The British treatment of Hong Kong does not measure up. HK people were not given proper British passports which they should have. Also, the Brits are doing nothing meaningful about getting China to follow the terms of their agreement. As to successful non-British former colonies you need go no further than St Pierre and Miquelon. The standard of living there is much higher than in the adjacent parts of Newfoundland. Guadeloupe, Martinique, St Martin, Need Caledonia, and Reunion also come to mind. Fascinating to compare Dominica to its neighbours, Guadeloupe and Martinique.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PurpleOnion said:

Chill out.  Take a few breaths and re-read what I wrote. Or don't.

I did re-read what I wrote.  I am a pretty astute reader, especially when I'm sober.  Correct me if I'm wrong but what I read was that you think basically humans suck (which I don't disagree with in spite of my unshakeable and misguided idealism) and anybody would and has done what the Brits did given the chance.  And I told you why I don't believe that.  

And now your quoting Frank Zappa!  I'm a big fan of a lot of Frank's work, but geeze.  I'm going to start quoting Springsteen.  I'm sure I can find something to criticize imperialistic, evil countries in his work.

And the Brits pillaged far more than the Parthenon, if they gave back every ancient relic they stole from all over the world, their famous museum shelves would be bare.  And calling the British subjugation of the Chinese people with opium 'shenanigans' a bit of an insulting minimization of that crime don't you think?

I don't think humans can do better,  I'd like to see them do better but alas, I doubt it is possible.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Also, the Brits are doing nothing meaningful about getting China to follow the terms of their agreement.

And just what are they going to do to get China to comply?  Send their powerful Navy there?  Oh wait, they don't have a powerful Navy anymore.  Send their colonial army there?  Oh wait, they don't have that anymore either.  Bankrupt them?  Oh wait, China could probably buy Great Britain a couple of times over.  Ply them with opium again?  Oh wait, the Chinese probably won't fall for that one again. 

I know, they can threaten to send prince Charlie, that will show those inscrutable Chinese!

6 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

As to successful non-British former colonies you need go no further than St Pierre and Miquelon. The standard of living there is much higher than in the adjacent parts of Newfoundland. Guadeloupe, Martinique, St Martin, Need Caledonia, and Reunion also come to mind. Fascinating to compare Dominica to its neighbours, Guadeloupe and Martinique.

Yep, those places you mention sure are international powerhouses!  I'm sure many countries in the world aspire to be Miquelon or New Caledonia.  If you can't be the US, you might as well shoot for Martinique!   

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Cristoforo said:

Except it’s the most important ‘industry’ England still has.  They probably stilL bring in more tourist money than they cost. Otherwise they would be gone. 
 

as Philip said when told England was once  running in the red ‘Oh dear I may have to give up polo’ 

It's remarkable ... England literally invented the Industrial Age by developing the first precision lede screw in the 1800s, in the legacy of Isaac Newton, and then they proceeded to spend the next hundred years killing off their future by allowing well-endowed families to utterly control their decisions of commerce and policy.

I'll never understand the attraction of this royal lineage in the average Briton's life. Even when they openly despise it, it just keeps rolling over their sovereignty like a fancy-pants juggernaut.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

And just what are they going to do to get China to comply?  Send their powerful Navy there?  Oh wait, they don't have a powerful Navy anymore.  Send their colonial army there?  Oh wait, they don't have that anymore either.  Bankrupt them?  Oh wait, China could probably buy Great Britain a couple of times over.  Ply them with opium again?  Oh wait, the Chinese probably won't fall for that one again.

Economic warfare is the new way. China has five of the biggest banks on the planet. The starting point would be the banks ... if Britain cared enough to put their nuts on the line, which they dont, and neither does the USA. We're all complicit in the rape of Hong Kong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mikewof said:

and then they proceeded to spend the next hundred years killing off their future by allowing financially well-endowed families to utterly control their decisions of commerce and policy.

Fixed for clarity.

Although I do believe somebody here alluded to the fact that Phil was supposedly hung like a horse.  Maybe VWap can find photographic proof of that rumor.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

I did re-read what I wrote.  I am a pretty astute reader, especially when I'm sober.  Correct me if I'm wrong but what I read was that you think basically humans suck (which I don't disagree with in spite of my unshakeable and misguided idealism) and anybody would and has done what the Brits did given the chance.  And I told you why I don't believe that.  

And now your quoting Frank Zappa!  I'm a big fan of a lot of Frank's work, but geeze.  I'm going to start quoting Springsteen.  I'm sure I can find something to criticize imperialistic, evil countries in his work.

And the Brits pillaged far more than the Parthenon, if they gave back every ancient relic they stole from all over the world, their famous museum shelves would be bare.  And calling the British subjugation of the Chinese people with opium 'shenanigans' a bit of an insulting minimization of that crime don't you think?

I don't think humans can do better,  I'd like to see them do better but alas, I doubt it is possible.  

You win the Internet.  I need to get back to my job at the British Embassy in Warsaw.

Rather than quote any other philosophers or draw unfavorable comparisons to the intelligence and talent of musicians, I'll quote someone you have much more respect for.

"There are many people like Crisco who are angry and bitter and feel that the world has done them wrong.  Crisco and his long history of name changes here has been doing his thing for a long time on SA.  Of course it's best to ignore him, but he does also have some entertainment value.  I guess everybody here offers what they can.

...

I am at a point in my life where I have done many things and I've grown much less sensitive to criticism.  I know who I am, and what I am.  I am only human, like Willy Loman, I want to be well liked, but at some point in my life I discovered being me got me liked better than trying to be somebody I wasn't.  Take me as I am or walk away.  I am here to make myself happy, then I can help others.  That's how life really works.  Gratuitous, insulting criticism is hurtful to a point, but it's best just to consider the source, brush it off and enjoy the positive feedback.  As they say, haters gonna hate.  People like Crisco hate others because they hate themselves.  That's just too bad really.  Introspection isn't for pussies."

I'll substitute a few names and take the advice of the author.

Enjoy the benefits of your hatred and continue to be happy and help others.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Economic warfare is the new way. China has five of the biggest banks on the planet. The starting point would be the banks ... if Britain cared enough to put their nuts on the line, which they dont, and neither does the USA. We're all complicit in the rape of Hong Kong.

Yeah but there's a bright side to that.  The intertwined financial markets are the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) of the new world order.

Just like in the simpler times of the Cold War, no nuclear nation wanted to launch nukes because it would result in complete and total  destruction.  China holds a tremendous amount of US government debt.  If they ruin us financially, they will get fucked as well.  And if the US and China go broke, so goes the world.

Besides, the Chinese play the long game, who knows what their end game is.  I doubt any of us here will be alive to see what the result of their strategy is, since most folks in the western world have trouble conceiving of any time frame beyond 5 years nowadays.  The Chinese look ahead a hundred years or more.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PurpleOnion said:

You win the Internet.  I need to get back to my job at the British Embassy in Warsaw.

Rather than quote any other philosophers or draw unfavorable comparisons to the intelligence and talent of musicians, I'll quote someone you have much more respect for.

"There are many people like Crisco who are angry and bitter and feel that the world has done them wrong.  Crisco and his long history of name changes here has been doing his thing for a long time on SA.  Of course it's best to ignore him, but he does also have some entertainment value.  I guess everybody here offers what they can.

...

I am at a point in my life where I have done many things and I've grown much less sensitive to criticism.  I know who I am, and what I am.  I am only human, like Willy Loman, I want to be well liked, but at some point in my life I discovered being me got me liked better than trying to be somebody I wasn't.  Take me as I am or walk away.  I am here to make myself happy, then I can help others.  That's how life really works.  Gratuitous, insulting criticism is hurtful to a point, but it's best just to consider the source, brush it off and enjoy the positive feedback.  As they say, haters gonna hate.  People like Crisco hate others because they hate themselves.  That's just too bad really.  Introspection isn't for pussies."

I'll substitute a few names and take the advice of the author.

Enjoy the benefits of your hatred and continue to be happy and help others.

 

Well apparently we have much more in common than either of us are willing to admit.  I get no greater pleasure in my life than when I am helping people in any way I can.  I've spent a good part of my working life in fields where helping people is the main job.  Except the hate part, I appear to differ with you there.  I too have seen and done many things, and I really don't care too much what others think of me.  Those who know me in person will generally speak highly of me.  I take more liberties here because, internet forum!, but I post under my real name so I have nothing to hide and I own my statements.  And I do try to avoid gratuitous mean, insulting criticism, if it sounds mean I like to think it is a lack of tact, not gratuitous insults.  I despise Crisco and all of his prior personae here, I like to believe I am not like him at all.  If you are somehow inferring that I am, well, I am hurt. 

I won't make excuses, but I will anyway in that after 65 years of life, going to basic training 2 different times, having 3 wives and two heart attacks, and having seen some of the best and a lot of the worst in humans in some of my many jobs, I get tired of being nice sometimes.  Sometimes I just feel a need to call things as they are, especially when people want to defend heinous behavior.  Like we used to say in the Army, what are they going to do, bend my dog tags?  As much as I try to be close to perfect (because no human can be perfect), sometimes I just give in to my baser instincts.  Again, another Army phrase, "Sometimes you just have to tell the boss the baby is ugly."

I remember my father always telling me you catch far more flies with honey than vinegar.  Now too many years too late, I should have responded "But what if I don't want to catch flies dad?  What if I just want to swat them?" 

As Frank Sinatra so eloquently sang, "Regrets, I've had a few, but then again too few to mention."*

And lastly, I have learned over the years how to deliver a gracious and sincere apology when I need to, none of this 'If ' I offended you shit.  And amazingly enough, it isn't even difficult anymore.

I see that have offended and or insulted you, or at least caused you to feel bad in some way.  I apologize for that.

*Shit, now I'm going to look like a hypocritical fool for chastising you for quoting movie character philosophy.  Please don't hate me for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, NaptimeAgain said:

Having visited Britain many times for work and tourism with family and friends, just my 2 cents as an American.  Given the costs and hassles of travel it's not just about what is in Britain (or anywhere else) but what is uniquely interesting about the British experience of it as opposed to anywhere else.

  • Speaking English (even with some twists) makes Britain an easy first international destination for Americans.  But English is very common in Iceland, Netherlands, Singapore, Italy, etc.  And even in Germany it's easy to get by with a mix of basic German and basic English.
  • The monarchy (and its related stuff) is behind much of the attraction.  The gang wants to see the palace and the Tower.  We didn't go to see the Pickle and the Shard.  Like Cinderella's castle in the Disney Parks, it's the thing folks think about.
  • Art museums are all over, and the Louvre, US National Gallery, Uffizi, and the Rijksmuseum and VanGogh are fine examples.  I would not personally trek to the UK just to see art.
  • Personally I like Windsor, though seeing American fast food shops outside the gate is a bit of a drag.
  • Post Brexit will see how that impacts business travel versus now going to the EU.
  • Many Americans have some Irish ancestors and thus some interest in the island of Ireland (yes I know it's not England) but recent unrest in NI may give some pause if it spreads.  
  • Castles are interesting, but a vestige of the whole monarchy feudalism thing.
  • As a golfer, a round or 2 in Scotland would be nice, but it would be a bit of a hassle compared to just playing a links course here in the US.
  • I suppose Scotch whisky distilleries are unique to Scotland, and they are nice, but at some point when you've visited a couple that's probably enough.  
  • My BA flights force me to take a bus from the plane to get to the terminal at LHR.  Then a very long walk but at least there is coffee when you exit customs and immigration.  Last thing I need after a long overnight flight.
  • Brighton and Portsmouth are interesting day trips, again in part due to Nelson's ship, which arguably links back to the monarchy warring with some other monarchy.  But similar experiences are available elsewhere.

And you can have all of that without the Royal Family.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, NaptimeAgain said:

Having visited Britain many times for work and tourism with family and friends, just my 2 cents as an American.  

I've been to London once as a tourist and passed through Heathrow once to change planes.  I can't say that I have any desire to do either again.  I have been to a lot of airports in the world and I do believe that Heathrow is hands down the worst one I've ever been to.  When I saw the sign that said "Estimated walking time to your gate 25-30 minutes"  I was like WTF??  Then to add insult to injury, the entire way were signs apologizing for the construction mess because they were making one of those walkway conveyor things.  I would imagine it's finished by now.  And the 20 minute bus ride between terminals was no fun either.  

While London did have it's charms (Yes, I really said that!), the one thing I really didn't like was how expensive everything was, although the damp cold didn't help.  I don't remember what the admission price to the Tower was, but it wasn't cheap.  I lived outside of Tokyo for 3 1/2 years and it's reputed to be one of the more expensive cities in the world, but I think London was far more expensive.  In most places I had no trouble communicating with the natives.  At one shop I finally asked the gent if we were speaking the same language!  Neither one of us could understand the other.  He looked like a native Brit, not Indian or anything else.

There are far more nicer, cheaper, better cities in Europe in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Canadians have a saying that goes something like this.  With our historical heritage we could have had French cuisine, English culture, and American efficiency.  But we ended up with English cuisine, American culture, and French efficiency.

As to the British (or any other) monarchy...I personally don't see much value in it beyond tourism to some extent.  But at least the Brits don't jail you for speaking ill of the sovereign, unlike some other places.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, NaptimeAgain said:

But at least the Brits don't jail you for speaking ill of the sovereign, unlike some other places.

The current ultra conservative, nationalist regime here in Poland has made it illegal to speak ill of the country's leaders.  

First they fired all of the liberal leaning supreme court justices and replaced them with conservative justices.  

Now they are trying to outlaw abortion completely except if the mother's life is in danger.  Rape victim?  Oh well.  Terrible genetic or developmental problems even if the child will die shortly after birth?  Oh well.

Some towns have legally established themselves as LGBQT free zones.

I'm running out of countries to move to.  Anybody know how French Polynesia is, I've always wanted to go there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

And just what are they going to do to get China to comply?  Send their powerful Navy there?  Oh wait, they don't have a powerful Navy anymore.  Send their colonial army there?  Oh wait, they don't have that anymore either.  Bankrupt them?  Oh wait, China could probably buy Great Britain a couple of times over.  Ply them with opium again?  Oh wait, the Chinese probably won't fall for that one again. 

I know, they can threaten to send prince Charlie, that will show those inscrutable Chinese!

Yep, those places you mention sure are international powerhouses!  I'm sure many countries in the world aspire to be Miquelon or New Caledonia.  If you can't be the US, you might as well shoot for Martinique!   

What does power house have to do with anything. China and Russia are powerhouses just not very nice quality of life unless you are very rich. I would much prefer living in Martinique than the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed Lada said:

The current ultra conservative, nationalist regime here in Poland has made it illegal to speak ill of the country's leaders.  

First they fired all of the liberal leaning supreme court justices and replaced them with conservative justices.  

Now they are trying to outlaw abortion completely except if the mother's life is in danger.  Rape victim?  Oh well.  Terrible genetic or developmental problems even if the child will die shortly after birth?  Oh well.

Some towns have legally established themselves as LGBQT free zones.

I'm running out of countries to move to.  Anybody know how French Polynesia is, I've always wanted to go there.

FP, at least the parts we went to are very nice although extremely expensive. Moorea was my fave of all. Mangareva is the most relaxed place I have ever been to. You have to order your baguettes (those are cheap, I think they are subsidized) for either morning pickup or late afternoon (or both). We found ourselves in long discussions about this. You get there by air from Tahiti, there are two flights every three weeks - or is it three flights every two weeks. Papeete has the most amazing supermarket I have ever seen, but pricey.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NaptimeAgain said:

Canadians have a saying that goes something like this.  With our historical heritage we could have had French cuisine, English culture, and American efficiency.  But we ended up with English cuisine, American culture, and French efficiency.

As to the British (or any other) monarchy...I personally don't see much value in it beyond tourism to some extent.  But at least the Brits don't jail you for speaking ill of the sovereign, unlike some other places.

 

Not long before it happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, El Mariachi said:

I've  heard that if you ever have plans on visiting French Polynesia for more than four days....that you can never bring too much cash, too high a FICO score or too many black credit cards.....

Well, it looks like Haiti then.

Almost as nice!  :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

I think it is simplistic to say that colonial power A is always good and B is not. In general, colonialism was and is a very bad thing but within that rubric you can see gradations. The British generally left their possessions post-WWII because they had little choice. They were in no position to stay by force or by economics. There were exceptions - Malaya and the Falklands come to mind where they employed force. In general, the Brits left their former colonies ill-prepared for independence. Don't get me started on Hong Kong. Obviously, you cannot defend French actions in Indo-China and Algeria, but in many places the French prepared their possessions better. They also chose to keep a variety of colonies (Martinique, St Martin, Reunion, etc) as parts of France. At times they have sent troops to protect former colonies from external threats, happening in Chad now.

Since when is/was the Falklands a colony? It was an uninhabited archipelago. It's no more a colony than the Shetlands Islands is.

The French prepared their colonies better? ROFL. They still HAVE colonies that they won't let loose. Those they don't have, they lost by force of arms for the most part.

Mind you in terms of worst colonial masters, the Belgians would take the cake, the Portuguese second in a dead heat with the Germans and then the French/British IMO. Though Spain has to figure right up there in the 'worst' stakes too, considering central and south America.

Anyway, I don't really care a lot. It's a period of history that's mostly gone by, though the shit certainly hasn't. Indonesia for example is still a ramshackle colonial empire.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

Belgium didn't have nearly the amount of colonies as the Brits did.

That's because they started late, not any other reason. By the time they got going, all the good places were already held by other countries.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Since when is/was the Falklands a colony? It was an uninhabited archipelago. It's no more a colony than the Shetlands Islands is.

The French prepared their colonies better? ROFL. They still HAVE colonies that they won't let loose. Those they don't have, they lost by force of arms for the most part.

 

Definition of colony. Don't see anything there that says that it had to have a native population before the colonizers and there sheep came.

noun
1. 
a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country.
 
Which French colonies are being held. French Polynesia is semi-autonomous. They were thinking of becoming independent until they looked at the books and realized they needed the subsidies from France and the EU. New Caledonia has some residents who want independence but not a majority. The islands in the Caribbean are not colonies, they are departments of France like Normandy or Provence. I guess the islands north of Antarctica are colonies although the populations are measured in a few dozens, not including the sea lions and penguins. Not sure if the latter have asked for independence.
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

It's a period of history that's mostly gone by, though the shit certainly hasn't. Indonesia for example is still a ramshackle colonial empire.

FKT

Huh???  Ever been in a remote village on Merdeka Day?  They are their own country and bloody proud of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Definition of colony. Don't see anything there that says that it had to have a native population before the colonizers and there sheep came.

noun
1. 
a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country.
 
Which French colonies are being held. French Polynesia is semi-autonomous. They were thinking of becoming independent until they looked at the books and realized they needed the subsidies from France and the EU. New Caledonia has some residents who want independence but not a majority. The islands in the Caribbean are not colonies, they are departments of France like Normandy or Provence. I guess the islands north of Antarctica are colonies although the populations are measured in a few dozens, not including the sea lions and penguins. Not sure if the latter have asked for independence.

True, the French West Indies (Martinique, Guadeloupe) have the same democratic rights and representation to parlement as any other part of metropolitan France. And its citizens vote to elect the French President; like all other French citizens.

Last time I checked, Puerto Rico, the USVI and other islands in the Pacific Ocean cannot claim the same status...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mikewof said:

It's remarkable ... England literally invented the Industrial Age by developing the first precision lede screw in the 1800s, in the legacy of Isaac Newton, and then they proceeded to spend the next hundred years killing off their future by allowing well-endowed families to utterly control their decisions of commerce and policy.

I'll never understand the attraction of this royal lineage in the average Briton's life. Even when they openly despise it, it just keeps rolling over their sovereignty like a fancy-pants juggernaut.

One thing really gobsmacked me when I first visited the Museum of Science and Technology: in 1800 Great Britain mined 80% of the coal in the world at the time beside a model of the steam engine that allowed this.  They controlled energy and therefore the world. Let the self riteous among you think of what you would do with this power, but the reality is that they had it.

The problem with the Irish is that they kept on losing military battles, in the beginning because they could never present a unified force against the English.  They kept on throwing passionate militias against professional soldiers throughout their conflicts. And then blamed the winners.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

Well apparently we have much more in common than either of us are willing to admit.  I get no greater pleasure in my life than when I am helping people in any way I can.  I've spent a good part of my working life in fields where helping people is the main job.  Except the hate part, I appear to differ with you there.  I too have seen and done many things, and I really don't care too much what others think of me.  Those who know me in person will generally speak highly of me.  I take more liberties here because, internet forum!, but I post under my real name so I have nothing to hide and I own my statements.  And I do try to avoid gratuitous mean, insulting criticism, if it sounds mean I like to think it is a lack of tact, not gratuitous insults.  I despise Crisco and all of his prior personae here, I like to believe I am not like him at all.  If you are somehow inferring that I am, well, I am hurt. 

I won't make excuses, but I will anyway in that after 65 years of life, going to basic training 2 different times, having 3 wives and two heart attacks, and having seen some of the best and a lot of the worst in humans in some of my many jobs, I get tired of being nice sometimes.  Sometimes I just feel a need to call things as they are, especially when people want to defend heinous behavior.  Like we used to say in the Army, what are they going to do, bend my dog tags?  As much as I try to be close to perfect (because no human can be perfect), sometimes I just give in to my baser instincts.  Again, another Army phrase, "Sometimes you just have to tell the boss the baby is ugly."

I remember my father always telling me you catch far more flies with honey than vinegar.  Now too many years too late, I should have responded "But what if I don't want to catch flies dad?  What if I just want to swat them?" 

As Frank Sinatra so eloquently sang, "Regrets, I've had a few, but then again too few to mention."*

And lastly, I have learned over the years how to deliver a gracious and sincere apology when I need to, none of this 'If ' I offended you shit.  And amazingly enough, it isn't even difficult anymore.

I see that have offended and or insulted you, or at least caused you to feel bad in some way.  I apologize for that.

*Shit, now I'm going to look like a hypocritical fool for chastising you for quoting movie character philosophy.  Please don't hate me for it.

And I apologize for my off topic reply and angering you.

P.S. You do know that the words quoted above are your own, don't you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Laker said:

One thing really gobsmacked me when I first visited the Museum of Science and Technology: in 1800 Great Britain mined 80% of the coal in the world at the time beside a model of the steam engine that allowed this.  They controlled energy and therefore the world. Let the self riteous among you think of what you would do with this power, but the reality is that they had it.

The problem with the Irish is that they kept on losing military battles, in the beginning because they could never present a unified force against the English.  They kept on throwing passionate militias against professional soldiers throughout their conflicts. And then blamed the winners.

and supplied many men in both Irish and English regiments of the British Army...

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PurpleOnion said:

And I apologize for my off topic reply and angering you.

P.S. You do know that the words quoted above are your own, don't you?

Thanks, I'm glad we got that resolved.  Now we can have a manly hug and be friends.

I thought those eloquent and well expressed words sounded familiar for some reason, but I didn't recognize them as mine.  :D  My once excellent memory isn't what it used to be unfortunately.  And that was a timely quote as I noticed today that Crisco has launched another one of his attacks on me.  I feel flattered in a way, that I have my very own stalker.  Ahh, the price of fame.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is he in the box and buried yet?............just asking for a country that's bored of this shit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2021 at 2:09 AM, Laker said:

One thing really gobsmacked me when I first visited the Museum of Science and Technology: in 1800 Great Britain mined 80% of the coal in the world at the time beside a model of the steam engine that allowed this.  They controlled energy and therefore the world. Let the self riteous among you think of what you would do with this power, but the reality is that they had it.

The problem with the Irish is that they kept on losing military battles, in the beginning because they could never present a unified force against the English.  They kept on throwing passionate militias against professional soldiers throughout their conflicts. And then blamed the winners.

When I read about Cardiff before a trip to Wales it stated it was the busiest port in the world at one time due to the coal exports

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Sure was a lot of muppets on this forum fawning over the passing of that there Philip chap.

Kinda ironic that one Given the name of this place.

From the dictionary,

Anarchy definition: 

“a state of disorder due to the absence or nonrecognition of authority “

.

 

Anyhoot : 

Rest In Peace ya old codger.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...