Country is fine but the natives ?
Aug 21st 2010, 7:28 am
#46
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Wales, UK
Posts: 1,216
Re: Country is fine but the natives ?
First - having a tongue-in-cheek pissing match about the Second World War does NOT, in any way, dishonor those who fought or died. Why would it?
Then - yes, all countries have their good & their bad points. But the point I made in an earlier post on this thread stands, I believe. The US currently dominates the world more than any other previous Empire has. I think this makes "the ugly American" uglier than "the ugly Dutchman" or "the ugly Englishman."
Then - yes, all countries have their good & their bad points. But the point I made in an earlier post on this thread stands, I believe. The US currently dominates the world more than any other previous Empire has. I think this makes "the ugly American" uglier than "the ugly Dutchman" or "the ugly Englishman."
I'll say this much....The British Empire in the opinon of the history books, was the largest the world has ever known.... America didn't go to other countries and form colonies and rule over them (we just bomb them and call it a police action
).....but England did colonize and did it for centuries and they affected a lot more people than the US ever dreamed of.Ask anyone from the former colonies whether the English lording it over them was an ugly period in their history. See what kind of answers you get. If you were poor or committed a petty crime, you were sent to Australia never to see your family again. If you were a native Australian it was much worse.... If you were in America, you paid 'taxes' and got nothing in return for it.... If you were an African you got to work on the coffee plantations or if you were real lucky the English slave traders ( who had slagged off the Dutch slave traders) shipped you off to another colony.....if you were an Indian, you had the pleasure of serving the Lord and Master East India Company ...If you were Irish, you were booted off your lands and starved to death in the potato fields. If you were Welsh your Princes were slaughtered and castles were thrown up around your country to keep you in line. ....I could go on and on giving examples....Scotland, the Mid East, The West Indies, etc......but why bother.....Oh and one last thought to leave you with. If America dominates the world today, perhaps it learned the methods of Empire from it's former master?
Aug 21st 2010, 7:31 am
#47
Heading for Poppyland
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: North Norfolk and northern New York State
Posts: 14,689
Re: Country is fine but the natives ?
I think your first paragraph is a matter of personal opinion.....I don't happen to share yours.
I'll say this much....The British Empire in the opinon of the history books, was the largest the world has ever known.... America didn't go to other countries and form colonies and rule over them ....
I'll say this much....The British Empire in the opinon of the history books, was the largest the world has ever known.... America didn't go to other countries and form colonies and rule over them ....
Philippines
Puerto Rico
To name just three out of many.
Yes, Hawaii was subsequently made into a state. But it was colonised by force, for American profit & power.
Aug 21st 2010, 7:36 am
#48
Heading for Poppyland
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: North Norfolk and northern New York State
Posts: 14,689
Re: Country is fine but the natives ?
Ask anyone from the former colonies whether the English lording it over them was an ugly period in their history. See what kind of answers you get. If you were poor or committed a petty crime, you were sent to Australia never to see your family again. If you were a native Australian it was much worse.... If you were in America, you paid 'taxes' and got nothing in return for it.... If you were an African you got to work on the coffee plantations or if you were real lucky the English slave traders ( who had slagged off the Dutch slave traders) shipped you off to another colony.....if you were an Indian, you had the pleasure of serving the Lord and Master East India Company ...If you were Irish, you were booted off your lands and starved to death in the potato fields. If you were Welsh your Princes were slaughtered and castles were thrown up around your country to keep you in line. ....I could go on and on giving examples....Scotland, the Mid East, The West Indies, etc......but why bother.....Oh and one last thought to leave you with. If America dominates the world today, perhaps it learned the methods of Empire from it's former master?
You do seem a bit riled up, though.
Aug 21st 2010, 8:37 am
#50
Heading for Poppyland
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: North Norfolk and northern New York State
Posts: 14,689
Re: Country is fine but the natives ?
Good!
Not sure about "the opinion of history books." That's a question of historiography, a debate that could go on for ever.
Yes, the British Empire was large in terms of pink on the map (especially on Mercator Projection maps that make Canada look even bigger than it really is.)
But in terms of national policy determining the fates of the little people, I'd say the American Imperium has a larger footprint. I'm thinking of all the wars America has ramped up since 1945, the malign effects of US-driven Globalization, and direct US imperialism. And what about all the territory that America has expropriated since 1783 (or whatever year you want to date the US from.) In terms of ethnic cleansing and state sponsored terror not many countries can rival the US. I'm thinking of the Creek War, the one that made Andrew Jackson a national hero, and on and on and on over the next hundred years. So in terms of longevity of empire, the Americans have been building it up for over two hundred years. The British Empire lasted about that length of time or less (Clive of India till the Second World War... yes, WWII, when the Americans got their stooge Churchill to give up the Empire so the US could take charge.)
....
I'll say this much....The British Empire in the opinion of the history books, was the largest the world has ever known.... America didn't go to other countries and form colonies and rule over them (we just bomb them and call it a police action).....but England did colonize and did it for centuries and they affected a lot more people than the US ever dreamed of.
....
I'll say this much....The British Empire in the opinion of the history books, was the largest the world has ever known.... America didn't go to other countries and form colonies and rule over them (we just bomb them and call it a police action
).....but England did colonize and did it for centuries and they affected a lot more people than the US ever dreamed of.....
Yes, the British Empire was large in terms of pink on the map (especially on Mercator Projection maps that make Canada look even bigger than it really is.)
But in terms of national policy determining the fates of the little people, I'd say the American Imperium has a larger footprint. I'm thinking of all the wars America has ramped up since 1945, the malign effects of US-driven Globalization, and direct US imperialism. And what about all the territory that America has expropriated since 1783 (or whatever year you want to date the US from.) In terms of ethnic cleansing and state sponsored terror not many countries can rival the US. I'm thinking of the Creek War, the one that made Andrew Jackson a national hero, and on and on and on over the next hundred years. So in terms of longevity of empire, the Americans have been building it up for over two hundred years. The British Empire lasted about that length of time or less (Clive of India till the Second World War... yes, WWII, when the Americans got their stooge Churchill to give up the Empire so the US could take charge.)
Aug 21st 2010, 11:20 am
#51
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,130
Re: Country is fine but the natives ?
Good!
Not sure about "the opinion of history books." That's a question of historiography, a debate that could go on for ever.
Yes, the British Empire was large in terms of pink on the map (especially on Mercator Projection maps that make Canada look even bigger than it really is.)
But in terms of national policy determining the fates of the little people, I'd say the American Imperium has a larger footprint. I'm thinking of all the wars America has ramped up since 1945, the malign effects of US-driven Globalization, and direct US imperialism. And what about all the territory that America has expropriated since 1783 (or whatever year you want to date the US from.) In terms of ethnic cleansing and state sponsored terror not many countries can rival the US. I'm thinking of the Creek War, the one that made Andrew Jackson a national hero, and on and on and on over the next hundred years. So in terms of longevity of empire, the Americans have been building it up for over two hundred years. The British Empire lasted about that length of time or less (Clive of India till the Second World War... yes, WWII, when the Americans got their stooge Churchill to give up the Empire so the US could take charge.)
Not sure about "the opinion of history books." That's a question of historiography, a debate that could go on for ever.
Yes, the British Empire was large in terms of pink on the map (especially on Mercator Projection maps that make Canada look even bigger than it really is.)
But in terms of national policy determining the fates of the little people, I'd say the American Imperium has a larger footprint. I'm thinking of all the wars America has ramped up since 1945, the malign effects of US-driven Globalization, and direct US imperialism. And what about all the territory that America has expropriated since 1783 (or whatever year you want to date the US from.) In terms of ethnic cleansing and state sponsored terror not many countries can rival the US. I'm thinking of the Creek War, the one that made Andrew Jackson a national hero, and on and on and on over the next hundred years. So in terms of longevity of empire, the Americans have been building it up for over two hundred years. The British Empire lasted about that length of time or less (Clive of India till the Second World War... yes, WWII, when the Americans got their stooge Churchill to give up the Empire so the US could take charge.)
Aug 21st 2010, 11:29 am
#52
Heading for Poppyland
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: North Norfolk and northern New York State
Posts: 14,689
Aug 21st 2010, 11:51 am
#53
Heading for Poppyland
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: North Norfolk and northern New York State
Posts: 14,689
Re: Country is fine but the natives ?
But if I was going to provide documentation it might start with this bibliography -
Winston S. Churchill, 1874-1965: A Comprehensive Historiography and Annotated Bibliography
and also include a couple of the books by Correlli Barnett about Winston Churchill & the dismantling of the British Empire.
Winston S. Churchill, 1874-1965: A Comprehensive Historiography and Annotated Bibliography
and also include a couple of the books by Correlli Barnett about Winston Churchill & the dismantling of the British Empire.
Aug 21st 2010, 8:50 pm
#54
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Wales, UK
Posts: 1,216
Re: Country is fine but the natives ?
The second empire didn't end because America made it happen. The empire ended because the British realized it was too expensive to maintain one and empire was no longer profitable.
After WWII (which last time I checked was Hitler's idea).....Britain simply didn't have the spare capital to export it abroad as it done for centuries. But the beginning of the end had started years before that. It had been leaking colonies for decades.
As much as I know it's easy to blame America for everything, please don't make me laugh by blaming the fall of the British Empire on them too.
After WWII (which last time I checked was Hitler's idea).....Britain simply didn't have the spare capital to export it abroad as it done for centuries. But the beginning of the end had started years before that. It had been leaking colonies for decades.
As much as I know it's easy to blame America for everything, please don't make me laugh by blaming the fall of the British Empire on them too.
Aug 22nd 2010, 1:59 am
#55
Heading for Poppyland
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: North Norfolk and northern New York State
Posts: 14,689
Re: Country is fine but the natives ?
The second empire didn't end because America made it happen. The empire ended because the British realized it was too expensive to maintain one and empire was no longer profitable.
After WWII (which last time I checked was Hitler's idea).....Britain simply didn't have the spare capital to export it abroad as it done for centuries. But the beginning of the end had started years before that. It had been leaking colonies for decades.
As much as I know it's easy to blame America for everything, please don't make me laugh by blaming the fall of the British Empire on them too.
After WWII (which last time I checked was Hitler's idea).....Britain simply didn't have the spare capital to export it abroad as it done for centuries. But the beginning of the end had started years before that. It had been leaking colonies for decades.
As much as I know it's easy to blame America for everything, please don't make me laugh by blaming the fall of the British Empire on them too.
And I don't "blame" America for the "fall" of the British Empire. I'm glad the UK government dismantled the Empire in a relatively orderly manner.. a little late in the day, as Labour Party theorists such as Leonard Woolf had argued forcefully for Indian self-government back in the 1920s, for instance. But better late than never.
However, world imperial power was a zero-sum game. It was long-term US policy to kick the UK off its perch and to take over themselves. Iraq, Iran, the Gulf? Caribbean & South America?
Aug 22nd 2010, 2:47 am
#56
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Wales, UK
Posts: 1,216
Re: Country is fine but the natives ?
That seems like you're blaming America for the end of the empire to me.
Everyone's a victim.
Aug 22nd 2010, 3:53 am
#57
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2007
Location: the dry part of Washington State
Posts: 1,333
Re: Country is fine but the natives ?
I guess we are a little off track comparing histories
What really matters is the here and now.
I think it I am hanging on to the following two facts:
A I can change the political environment by simply moving to another State or part of a State
B The direction of the US since 1787 has been a constant liberalisation. The abolition of slavery - votes for non property owners- votes for women, 18 years olds - action on domestic violence - gay right- and now some move on health care. It is a one way street of liberalization and it will continue. So at least I am in a nation that grows more and more liberal on a daily basis and has been doing for 2 hundred years with a blip for prohibition.
Actually, even Iran and Saudi are in the same direction albeit very, very, very slowly.
I suppose the right wingers around me who would shoot illegals at the border etc are are only becoming nastier because they know they are losing - and with every passing year, the time when they could lynch and starve people recedes into history.
We have decided to both become dual nationals US/UK eventually so we are insulated from the possibility of being denied health care in the US and then dying in poverty.
This can happen even with good insurance so it's always a fear.
What really matters is the here and now.
I think it I am hanging on to the following two facts:
A I can change the political environment by simply moving to another State or part of a State
B The direction of the US since 1787 has been a constant liberalisation. The abolition of slavery - votes for non property owners- votes for women, 18 years olds - action on domestic violence - gay right- and now some move on health care. It is a one way street of liberalization and it will continue. So at least I am in a nation that grows more and more liberal on a daily basis and has been doing for 2 hundred years with a blip for prohibition.
Actually, even Iran and Saudi are in the same direction albeit very, very, very slowly.
I suppose the right wingers around me who would shoot illegals at the border etc are are only becoming nastier because they know they are losing - and with every passing year, the time when they could lynch and starve people recedes into history.
We have decided to both become dual nationals US/UK eventually so we are insulated from the possibility of being denied health care in the US and then dying in poverty.
This can happen even with good insurance so it's always a fear.
Aug 22nd 2010, 4:01 am
#58
Heading for Poppyland
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: North Norfolk and northern New York State
Posts: 14,689
Re: Country is fine but the natives ?
OK ... Congress, Presidents, various think-tanks haven't called it world domination, but that is what it is.
Manifest Destiny ...
Providential Destiny..
American Exceptionalism..
New American Century...
"Making the World Safe for Democracy" !!
Aug 24th 2010, 1:31 am
#59
-------------------------
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 8,382
Re: Country is fine but the natives ?
America didn't go to other countries and form colonies and rule over them (we just bomb them and call it a police action).....but England did colonize and did it for centuries and they affected a lot more people than the US ever dreamed of.
Ask anyone from the former colonies whether the English lording it over them was an ugly period in their history. See what kind of answers you get. If you were poor or committed a petty crime, you were sent to Australia never to see your family again. If you were a native Australian it was much worse.... If you were in America, you paid 'taxes' and got nothing in return for it.... If you were an African you got to work on the coffee plantations or if you were real lucky the English slave traders ( who had slagged off the Dutch slave traders) shipped you off to another colony.....if you were an Indian, you had the pleasure of serving the Lord and Master East India Company ...If you were Irish, you were booted off your lands and starved to death in the potato fields. If you were Welsh your Princes were slaughtered and castles were thrown up around your country to keep you in line. ....I could go on and on giving examples....Scotland, the Mid East, The West Indies, etc......but why bother.....
).....but England did colonize and did it for centuries and they affected a lot more people than the US ever dreamed of.Ask anyone from the former colonies whether the English lording it over them was an ugly period in their history. See what kind of answers you get. If you were poor or committed a petty crime, you were sent to Australia never to see your family again. If you were a native Australian it was much worse.... If you were in America, you paid 'taxes' and got nothing in return for it.... If you were an African you got to work on the coffee plantations or if you were real lucky the English slave traders ( who had slagged off the Dutch slave traders) shipped you off to another colony.....if you were an Indian, you had the pleasure of serving the Lord and Master East India Company ...If you were Irish, you were booted off your lands and starved to death in the potato fields. If you were Welsh your Princes were slaughtered and castles were thrown up around your country to keep you in line. ....I could go on and on giving examples....Scotland, the Mid East, The West Indies, etc......but why bother.....
Anything else? Or are you going to go back any further.. I mean should we all start complaiining to the Italians about the Romans behaviour towards the rest of Europe 2000 years ago?
Let's get back to slagging off the natives of today, shall we?
