NationStates Jolt Archive

Its high time somebody stood up for our past. I have had enough of all of the negative and biased views of the British empire. All we hear about is that we should be apologetic to every African Asian and middle eastern person we meet for colonising their Country 200-300 years ago!
I am not saying that we did perfectly, i am saying that we did exceptionally well, and that many other Countries, especially those ruled by other European powers, were glad to see us. And don't forget the technology we developed to get the world to the condition that it is in (scientifically, not just environmentally) So here is a topic that i'd like people to say WHATEVER they like about Britain, positive and negative.
Just keep it civilised (with a z?) and respect all opinions (I know, the ns forum audience is good for that, but i just wanted to say that. And this.) I want a good clean fight, no hitting below the belt. Ding Ding!
(could i sound any more patronising?)

I think that there is no point in taking collective pride or shame for events that my ancestors had no role in. I'm fairly sure that my ancestors, like most ordinary people were putting up with the same old crap that we put up with now while still being asked to swallow some ilusory sense of 'pride'. Pride for what? these were 'achievements' carried out by the British state and assorted bastards. The British history I am proud of is the histroy not often told. The diggers, the Chartists, the Tolypuddle Martyrs, The working classes killed at waterloo. The workers behind 'new unionism' That's my history.

To anybody who views this topic. Even if you do not want to reply, could you take the time to answer the poll question. I just want to get an idea of what kind of attitude we have here, and if none of the answers fit your choice, and you can be bothered please telegram me.

Our empire was the greatest, bar none. It should still be operating.

Nobody in the UK today is responsible for anything the British Empire did- its successes and its failures belong to the past;not to me.
There are people who will judge another man purely because of his country/his country of origin//the history of his country- I would rather be judged for my successes and my failures as a man.
I do not feel that I am due any respect simply by virtue of my nationality,after all I can no more choose the country of my birth than I can choose the colour of my skin, or the religon of my parents; and so see little reason to give Britain or any other land "the respect its due".

firstly, thanks albion.
If you could give me any info regarding what you mention i would be appreciative but don't think that this is to only think of the important achievments. This is to honour them all

People say that the love of money is the root of all evil, well I say that patriotism is the root of all evil.

The British Empire had some pretty awful moments, but compared to the Spanish, the French (or, worse, Belgians) or the Dutch they were kittens. It shouldn't be forgotten that it profited massively from slavery, was strongly intolerant of local dissent, and vindicated evil bastards like Cecil Rhodes. It should also be remembered that Britain's wealth and infrastructure still owes a great deal to its past exploitation. But it banned slavery relatively early - the first imperial power to do so - built up infrastructure and education that the Commonwealth still benefits hugely from, and did its best to dismantle itself responsibly. Okay, it was a weird balance of profiteering and paternalism - but they were hardly more autocratic than the leaders they displaced. Intolerant, perhaps, but would it have been A Good Thing if India still had the caste system, or southern Africa was ruled by tribal chiefs?
(Okay, tribal chiefs would still be way better than Mugabe or apartheid. And I doubt many Aboriginies or Arabs would be happy with this analysis. It's kind of a mixed bag).

This is what I'm getting at, but do you ever see the dutch, the French, or the Belgians taking any flack for it? nope
and lets not mention the whole American, usa led massacre of the native population. (Admittedly we have to claim responsibility for works like that too, but at least we do, as opposed to the "Blameless Americans

As far as I'm concerned the British Empire was Okay. It wasn't as bad as the french or the spanish. And certainly not as bad as imperial or Napolianic France. (They just killed civillians for fun.) It did some bad things, the East India comany for example or Tasmania, but it was good mainly. We did good things, like at Assye when Sir Auther Weasly (Later the Viscount of Travira, and Duke of Wellington. Apologies for poor spelling.) beat a indian warlord who was really evil and his 100,000 men with an army of 7,000 men. But over all it was OK.

As far as I'm concerned the British Empire was Okay. It wasn't as bad as the french or the spanish. And certainly not as bad as imperial or Napolianic France. (They just killed civillians for fun.) It did some bad things, the East India comany for example or Tasmania, but it was good mainly. We did good things, like at Assye when Sir Auther Weasly (Later the Viscount of Travira, and Duke of Wellington. Apologies for poor spelling.) beat a indian warlord who was really evil and his 100,000 men with an army of 7,000 men. But over all it was OK.

Catholic Europe. Patriotism may be the root of all evil, but we need patriotism to advance. If we had no higher loyalty then we would be living in a feudal society, and likely everything that comes with it, probably including plague

Well, no, not really. Patriotism is not necessarily a bad thing, provided it isn't taken too far, but nor is it the sole cause of progress; or at least, not positive progress.

Secondly, the British Empire was undoubtably, irredeemably wrong. The fact that it wasn't as bad as the other colonial powers - such as, God help us, the Belgians - is irrevelant. It was wrong for a very simple reason: subjugating entire peoples on the basis of assumed inferiority is never, ever right. Granted, empire had some benefits for the colonised: they got, say, railways. Yippee. They also got repressed. The fact that very few countries wished to remain under the colonial yoke surely demonstrates something important here?

Thirdly, I have never met anyone (Americans banging on about the Revolution excluded) who has been hostile towards me, as a Briton, because of what the leaders of my country did long before I was born. It would be daft. However, hostility does exist; but probably less hostility than in ex-French or Belgian or Dutch colonies, due to the way we granted most colonies freedom with relatively little struggle, and the popularity of the Commonwealth as an economic body.

To conclude: any empire is bad, ours included, but it was a very long time ago. So there.

I don't think patriotism is the root of all evil, nationalism is.

As for the British empire, I think it was wrong, but some good came out of it. It civilised a lot of the world (but at the same time oppressed and exploited it). It enslaved a lot of people. But it's pretty clear that we weren't as bad as other imperial powers, such as France, Spain, Belgium or Germany. We weren't as heavy handed and we ended slavery far earlier than a lot of countries. It was so long ago and I think it's wrong to blame the people of a country for the crimes of the past.

I think that there is no point in taking collective pride or shame for events that my ancestors had no role in. I'm fairly sure that my ancestors, like most ordinary people were putting up with the same old crap that we put up with now while still being asked to swallow some ilusory sense of 'pride'. Pride for what? these were 'achievements' carried out by the British state and assorted bastards. The British history I am proud of is the histroy not often told. The diggers, the Chartists, the Tolypuddle Martyrs, The working classes killed at waterloo. The workers behind 'new unionism' That's my history.

*Stands Proud*

Indeed, thats my history.
My Grandfather was a conscientious objector and a left wing campaigner, put into forced labour for refusing to kill. We've nothing to be proud of in the House of Lords, the Monarchy or our Colonial History. We should be proud of the shipyards, the mines, the fields. This is our history. Not the history thrust upon us from above. Its about time we realised the flags and guns aren't what made Britain Great- it was us, the people. Which is my main reason why British Republicanism is far more British than Monarchy- we were the first modern Republic, we've always had the greatest workers rights, we've always fought for ourselves and our beliefs. I won't pick up a gun for Her Majesty- I'll pick it up to save the People of Britain.

I was a miner
I was a docker
I was a railway man
Between the wars
I raised a family
In times of austerity
With sweat at the foundry
Between the wars.

I paid the union and as times got harder
I looked to the government to help the working man
And they brought prosperity down at the armoury
We're arming for peace, me boys
Between the wars.

I kept the faith and I kept voting
Not for the iron fist but for the helping hand
For theirs is a land with a wall around it
And mine is a faith in my fellow man
Theirs is a land of hope and glory
Mine is the green field and the factory floor
Theirs are the skies all dark with bombers
And mine is the peace we knew
Between the wars.

Call up the craftsmen
Bring me the draftsmen
Build me a path from cradle to grave
And I'll give my consent
To any government
That does not deny a man a living wage.

Go find the young men never to fight again
Bring up the banners from the days gone by
Sweet moderation
Heart of this nation
Desert us not, we are
Between the wars.


Billy Bragg- Between the Wars

Britain hasn't been unduly castigated for the empire. We've been let off easy.

The last thing I want to do is hark back to the 'glories' of the British Empire, thank you very much. The world has had enough of empires.

I agree with Jordaxian Outposts. Britain was a shining beacon to the world in the 18th and 19th centuries. Statistically, it had the best economy of the 19th century. It started the Industrial Revolution. It showed India the advances in the world they were missing out on. In fact, because the British provided the framework of an industrial society and a decent education system, it lays at the root of why quite a few jobs are outsourced there.
It brought civilization to many parts of the world, like Africa. If you look at the history of African nations that were once British colonies, most are stable governments (Sudan is a big exception), and some are even prospering, like Gabon and South Africa.
But as an American, I'd have to say that the most important contribution was us. Unlike the French or Spanish, the British were very interested in North America early on. If it weren't for them, we wouldn't be here. I think it should be held up as the greatest country of its era, and certainly one of the greatest empires the world has known.

All we hear about is that we should be apologetic to every African Asian and middle eastern person we meet for colonising their Country 200-300 years ago!

Let's not forget the Irish, luv.

It brought civilization to many parts of the world, like Africa. If you look at the history of African nations that were once British colonies, most are stable governments (Sudan is a big exception), and some are even prospering, like Gabon and South Africa.

Gabon wasn't British territory; it was French. If South Africa's prospering (which is debatable) it's no thanks to the UK - we cast 'em loose on decades of apartheid government, and were horribly slow to condemn said apartheid regime (thank you Thatcher). Oh, and we invented concentration camps (not extermination camps: there's a distinction) during the Boer War.

As for stable African nations: yeah, some of the African kingdoms were pretty despotic, but let's look at some of the stable, civilised regimes Britain left behind, shall we? Zimbabwe's suffering under the yoke of Mugabe, who uses famine as a weapon against those who don't support him; Nigeria's only just beginning to emerge from the legacy of Sani Abacha, who let oil companies trample minorities and imprisoned dissenters; Sierra Leone lurches from civil war to civil war, and the Cameroons are deeply corrupt and ruled by a dictator in all but name. Then there's Uganda - does the name Idi Amin mean anything to you? - and Kenya, which didn't manage genuine elections until 2002. Tanzania and Zambia are horribly, horribly poor. Just about the only stable, prosperous African region the Empire was responsible for is Botswana (pop: 2 million). Oh, and maybe Swaziland.

But as an American, I'd have to say that the most important contribution was us. Unlike the French or Spanish, the British were very interested in North America early on. If it weren't for them, we wouldn't be here.

Well, the French were certainly very interested in North America - hence, y'know, the wars fought between Britain and France over America. And the British were certainly less bothered about America than, say, Jamaica, where all the real money came from.

I think it should be held up as the greatest country of its era, and certainly one of the greatest empires the world has known.

All empires commit atrocities. (When people hold up the Romans and the empire of Alexander they're inclined to forget that these were elitist, racist, slave-driven economies who thought gladiatorial combat and paedophilia perfectly acceptable activity). The only difference was that the British Empire had some attempt at altruism - sometimes misguided, sometimes not - alongside their goals of power and wealth.

It brought civilization to many parts of the world, like Africa. If you look at the history of African nations that were once British colonies, most are stable governments (Sudan is a big exception), and some are even prospering, like Gabon and South Africa.

Gabon wasn't British territory; it was French. If South Africa's prospering (which is debatable) it's no thanks to the UK - we cast 'em loose on decades of apartheid government, and were horribly slow to condemn said apartheid regime (thank you Thatcher). Oh, and we invented concentration camps (not extermination camps: there's a distinction) during the Boer War.

As for stable African nations: yeah, some of the African kingdoms were pretty despotic, but let's look at some of the stable, civilised regimes Britain left behind, shall we? Zimbabwe's suffering under the yoke of Mugabe, who uses famine as a weapon against those who don't support him; Nigeria's only just beginning to emerge from the legacy of Sani Abacha, who let oil companies trample minorities and imprisoned dissenters; Sierra Leone lurches from civil war to civil war, and the Cameroons are deeply corrupt and ruled by a dictator in all but name. Then there's Uganda - does the name Idi Amin mean anything to you? - and Kenya, which didn't manage genuine elections until 2002. Tanzania and Zambia are horribly, horribly poor. Just about the only stable, prosperous African region the Empire was responsible for is Botswana (pop: 2 million). Oh, and maybe Swaziland.

But as an American, I'd have to say that the most important contribution was us. Unlike the French or Spanish, the British were very interested in North America early on. If it weren't for them, we wouldn't be here.

Well, the French were certainly very interested in North America - hence, y'know, the wars fought between Britain and France over America. And the British were certainly less bothered about America than, say, Jamaica, where all the real money came from.

I think it should be held up as the greatest country of its era, and certainly one of the greatest empires the world has known.

All empires commit atrocities. (When people hold up the Romans and the empire of Alexander they're inclined to forget that these were elitist, racist, slave-driven economies who thought gladiatorial combat and paedophilia perfectly acceptable activity). The only difference was that the British Empire had some attempt at altruism - sometimes misguided, sometimes not - alongside their goals of power and wealth.
I thought Gabon was British. My mistake. But overall, former British territories in Africa seemed more stable than other countries. The former French territories of West Africa and Djibouti are currently in horrible condition. Somolia isn't so hot, but there is some semblance of order in the breakaway state of Somaliland, where the British once did control. And today, I feel South Africa is prospering. Throughout the decade, their GDP has grown faster than their population.
Besides, there are other colonies elsewhere that are better off. Look at Malaysia and Singapore. They are certainly much wealthier and far more stable than former French Indochina, or Indonesia (once Dutch ruled).
As for French interest in North America. The only reason they were interested was to compete with Britain, and they hoped to deprive it of some of its only colonies by the Seven Year's War. Of course, they did become more interested in Jamaica, but they had reasons for wanting to keep us colonies. Before they were able to develope Canada, we were Britain's source of quite a few raw materials. Lumber, tobacco, quite a few metals, and, of course, a nice, stable market for the British to sell to. Until the revolution came, we were the moneymakers. Why else did they tax the hell out of us?
As for your last comment, about how empires are bad because they are, by nature, glory hungry. All empires have their defects. The British was, well, to be honest I can't figure it out. But they lost their empire because they had to fight two world wars, which drained them. But anyhow, empires have generally been good things. Even the Mongols, renowned for their savage conquest, were good because they truely did link east and west (Marco Polo, anyone?). The Romans brought civilization to many parts of Europe that needed it. Alexander united everywhere from Greece to India, creating a common culture that has influences over most areas of the world. The various Chinese dynasties brought the unity much longed for by the Chinese. The Spanish virtually created the new world. Need I go on?
Empires are generally a good thing. Sure, they may be glory hungry, but that creates a lot of positive by-products, like infrastructure improvements, which help to augment colonial econonomies. And even if you do hate the fact that the UK once had an empire, you can't deny many important economic contributions were made during this period, by the British.

*ahem* Need I comment on the imperialism that Britain had? The poor ruling? The lack of a good-enough military to defeat the Americans? The dominance of India? The taking over of some parts in Africa? The crappy medical system? The terrible clothes? The lack of a social ladder to climb? The King/Queen's snottiness? The Christianity obession? The ancestors of Americans?

Nah, I doubt it. Britain had it's moments, but I wouldnt call it the "beacon of holy light for 200-300 years"

I wonder, if I replaced 'Britain' with 'America' in your statement, it would be relevant today. 5 yankee dollars says it would be.

Colodia, I agree with most of your statements. Though as a direct victem of their oppression, I have a hard time granting them even the few good points they have earned.

Colodia, I agree with most of your statements. Though as a direct victem of their oppression, I have a hard time granting them even the few good points they have earned.
Ma'am, I regret to say I don't know which one of the former British colonies you're from. But if it weren't for the British, you'd never have that computer. You'd never speak English (which you seem to have learned well, btw). I know, they did wrong. But hey, they built the economy of whichever nation your in since you seem to be able to afford a computer. Some ex-colonies of other nations were never as lucky.

Colodia, I agree with most of your statements. Though as a direct victem of their oppression, I have a hard time granting them even the few good points they have earned.
Ma'am, I regret to say I don't know which one of the former British colonies you're from. But if it weren't for the British, you'd never have that computer. You'd never speak English (which you seem to have learned well, btw). I know, they did wrong. But hey, they built the economy of whichever nation your in since you seem to be able to afford a computer. Some ex-colonies of other nations were never as lucky.

I live in America, but I'm strictly Irish. And you are right. I'd be happy and home, speaking Gaelic. And we wouldn't have had to move to the states if not for the horrendous problems the Brits caused, starting with the Famine. Granted, they have done a lot of good for the peoples they have conquested. In one sense, they have granted me a great opportunity. I serve my current country with duty and pride, and I've been given an opportunity to experiece many things I couldn't have dreamt of had I lived in Ireland. But at what price?

That's the only lingering problem I have with the English. It's a mixed view. All the good they have done is far offset in my mind by their greivous wrongs. Because of them and their conquest, this world is far less culturally diverse than it could have been. By colonizing areas, they took over, and forced the natives to assimilate to their culture. They killed off entire languages and ways of life.

That is the sin I cannot forgive, and sadly I have nowhere to place the blame. It is unfair to place it on today's English. They are the sons of their fathers, and not the cause.

Isn't that a bit like saying "well your life may be absolutely terrible because of the way Britain treated its colonies, but hey, it could be worse!"?

Define "Old English Empire"....

As in from 1066-1900?

Isn't that a bit like saying "well your life may be absolutely terrible because of the way Britain treated its colonies, but hey, it could be worse!"?

yep it sure is

British colonization was the best thing to have happened to the world.

Bollocks to their colonization.

Great Britain used to be an incredible force to be reckoned with, now, it just hides behind the US in order to continue pretending to be a superpower.

People say that the love of money is the root of all evil, well I say that patriotism is the root of all evil.

Where is the root of patriotism but in PATRIA, PATER (modern English is roughly 'father')? It is the same root as in "Patronize" on the negative side or the slightly less insulting "Paternalistic".

The (mis?)appropriation of this historical intra-familial relationship to extra-familial relationships has generally been on the part of the the more powerful and better off (land owners, masters, feudal lords, etc.) toward the relatively powerless class they depended on for maintaining and enhancing their wealth.

The servant/slave/serf who was made necessarily dependent for their survival were made to pledge loyality to the authority of the land owners, masters, feudal lords. This practice therefore benefited what at root it still serves today, the love of money.

:shock:

Catholic Europe. Patriotism may be the root of all evil, but we need patriotism to advance. If we had no higher loyalty then we would be living in a feudal society, and likely everything that comes with it, probably including plague

We are living in a feudal society.

Like the devil's greatest trick has been to convince people there is no devil (I speak metaphorically) the ruling class has people convinced that they are not wage/tax slaves with a shot at the big time.

Technological advance has not come about to enhance individual freedom and it certainly has not been spurred by patriotism. It has been spurred forward by the ruling class molding us into consumers who are programmed to buy crap we don't need.

If patriotism spurs advance why hasn't patriotism developed solar energy, hydrogen engines and other energy sources to the point they are marketable? Because the ruling class has yet to find a way to make bigger money in that than they do on oil.

...Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off. "
- Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt), Fight Club

:shock:

British Colonialism was good and bad. Impressive that a small, rocky island nation took over one fourth of the world.

Speaking as an Asian, I think that the British Empire in India was at least somewhat better than what came before. And you have to realise that the calls for independence all came from the educated upper and middle class native section of society (who mostly had a british education and had adopted British notions of nationalism). At least the British Empire provided the means for these men to make the call for independence and then let them do so relatively peacefully.

I think the main problem is that although the British were probably the most enlightened military power, they take so much flak (becuase of their 19th century superpower status) than a host of other smaller Imperial powers.

The Dutch raped Indonesia.
The Belgians sodomised the Congo.
French efforts gave us the war in Algeria, Pol Pot in Cambodia and the Vietnam war- way to go guys.

Britain by far did the msot for its colonies and let them go under pretty good conditions.

You may bring up S. Africa- the Boers siezed power in government democratically- are you going to blame the brits for that?
Everyone tries to judge the people of the past by moderns standards. I don't think that works.
In an era of horrific Imperial abuse, the British provided a stable and generally secure system of governing the people they had conquered.

The British empire was the first one in history that attempted to leave local cultures and social structures as intact as possible. Their pullout of the colonies was messy though. They have divided their former assets into states with one thought in mind- securing their remaining interests abroad (like the Suez channel and the Mosul oil fields). Which led to creation of unstable, unworkable mutant states like Iraq and Yemen and to perpetual border conflicts like between Egypt and Sudan or Turkey and Syria.

I love my country and considerd military service for it's well being and the Commonwealth for a while.
I couldn't be happier or proud enough about living in this "Green And Pleasent Land" of ours.

For Queen And Country!

Probably one of the more barbaric empires ever to have existed.

But anyhow, empires have generally been good things. Even the Mongols, renowned for their savage conquest, were good because they truely did link east and west (Marco Polo, anyone?). The Romans brought civilization to many parts of Europe that needed it. Alexander united everywhere from Greece to India, creating a common culture that has influences over most areas of the world. The various Chinese dynasties brought the unity much longed for by the Chinese. The Spanish virtually created the new world.

I can see your points on the other empires, but I'm appalled that you include the Spanish. The Spanish created the New World by adventurist genocide and slavery; okay, so the Aztecs and Incas (also empires, you'll note) were just as bad, but that justifies nothing.

*ahem* Need I comment on the imperialism that Britain had? The poor ruling? The lack of a good-enough military to defeat the Americans? The dominance of India? The taking over of some parts in Africa? The crappy medical system? The terrible clothes? The lack of a social ladder to climb? The King/Queen's snottiness? The Christianity obession? The ancestors of Americans?

Nah, I doubt it. Britain had it's moments, but I wouldnt call it the "beacon of holy light for 200-300 years"

May I remind you that they did have the ability to crush the Americans. They could have done it half blind with no guns!

The fact is that the British army could not defeat both the Americans and the French (who recieve little thanks for it)

*ahem* Need I comment on the imperialism that Britain had? The poor ruling? The lack of a good-enough military to defeat the Americans? The dominance of India? The taking over of some parts in Africa? The crappy medical system? The terrible clothes? The lack of a social ladder to climb? The King/Queen's snottiness? The Christianity obession? The ancestors of Americans?

Nah, I doubt it. Britain had it's moments, but I wouldnt call it the "beacon of holy light for 200-300 years"

May I remind you that they did have the ability to crush the Americans. They could have done it half blind with no guns!

The fact is that the British army could not defeat both the Americans and the French (who recieve little thanks for it)

Yup, just rants such as 'Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys! We saved your ass in WWII and this is how you repay us- my holding a different opinion! How dare you! For this, we will rename a potato based fast food snack which you didn't even invent! HAH! Take that, froggy boys!'

:roll:

ROFL!! OMG I've had a giggle reading posts on this thread.

Firstly......Britain is made up of four areas. Scotland, England, N.Ireland and Wales. It is not an 'English' society, so all those who think GB= England....I suggest you read more books.

Secondly, 300 years ago the populice of the entire planet was naive. We all fought, we all did things that by todays standards seem barbaric and we all stumbled through life with the "every nation for himself" attitude. Things have changed....and Britain was at the forefront of that change.

Great Britain has brought most of the great scientific / social advances to the planet, sure there are always have been and probably always will be bad apples, But we have over the last few centuries identified what is acceptable and what is not (slavery, murder, dictatorship, genocide etc) Whilst at some time we were guilty of all of the above, we learned from our mistakes and progressed our society keeping the mistakes of the past at the forefront of our thoughts.

I think everyone should bear in mind what GB has done for this planet compared to other nations, sure we were once bad ass conquerers, but we were also the first to abolish this way of life. I guess being one of the oldest civilisations on the planet gives a good amount of hindsight.

I do often feel sorry for Americans, they have it drummed into them from very early on that America is the greatest civilisation on the planet, that they are the saviour of the free world and have one of the most democartic systems ever - I'm sure that many people will join me in saying......HA! methinks not!

I feel sorry for many africans, they live in a country rife with poverty and dictators and the attitude we had a couple of hundred years ago "every man for himself" - if Britain still colonised them, it would not be that way. To give you an example....

My friend works in Chad, his oil base has an african encampment built round it...one night a fire starts, his oil company send their own fire engine into the village. Villagers start arguing about whose hut gets put out first, fight starts, one african steals keys to engine so no fires can be put out....village burns.

Sure, GB has done it's fair share of bad crap, but you can't doubt that today we are probably one of the last bastions of 'decentness'. Unfortunately, this too is changing as our goverment takes it up the rear from the Good old US of 'A'....

I might also point out that after thousands of years the population of this tiny island is still only 60 million.......we are a TINY nation yet we do so much better than nations three times our size.

ROFL!! OMG I've had a giggle reading posts on this thread.

Firstly......Britain is made up of four areas. Scotland, England, N.Ireland and Wales. It is not an 'English' society, so all those who think GB= England....I suggest you read more books.

Secondly, 300 years ago the populice of the entire planet was naive. We all fought, we all did things that by todays standards seem barbaric and we all stumbled through life with the "every nation for himself" attitude. Things have changed....and Britain was at the forefront of that change.

Great Britain has brought most of the great scientific / social advances to the planet, sure there are always have been and probably always will be bad apples, But we have over the last few centuries identified what is acceptable and what is not (slavery, murder, dictatorship, genocide etc) Whilst at some time we were guilty of all of the above, we learned from our mistakes and progressed our society keeping the mistakes of the past at the forefront of our thoughts.

I think everyone should bear in mind what GB has done for this planet compared to other nations, sure we were once bad ass conquerers, but we were also the first to abolish this way of life. I guess being one of the oldest civilisations on the planet gives a good amount of hindsight.

I do often feel sorry for Americans, they have it drummed into them from very early on that America is the greatest civilisation on the planet, that they are the saviour of the free world and have one of the most democartic systems ever - I'm sure that many people will join me in saying......HA! methinks not!

I feel sorry for many africans, they live in a country rife with poverty and dictators and the attitude we had a couple of hundred years ago "every man for himself" - if Britain still colonised them, it would not be that way. To give you an example....

My friend works in Chad, his oil base has an african encampment built round it...one night a fire starts, his oil company send their own fire engine into the village. Villagers start arguing about whose hut gets put out first, fight starts, one african steals keys to engine so no fires can be put out....village burns.

Sure, GB has done it's fair share of bad crap, but you can't doubt that today we are probably one of the last bastions of 'decentness'. Unfortunately, this too is changing as our goverment takes it up the rear from the Good old US of 'A'....

I might also point out that after thousands of years the population of this tiny island is still only 60 million.......we are a TINY nation yet we do so much better than nations three times our size.

Here Here!

This is what I'm getting at, but do you ever see the dutch, the French, or the Belgians taking any flack for it? nope
and lets not mention the whole American, usa led massacre of the native population. (Admittedly we have to claim responsibility for works like that too, but at least we do, as opposed to the "Blameless Americans

I believe that about half a year ago the topic was pretty hot in the belgian press. Lot's of stories about how the belgians oppressed and massacred the people of congo and profited from their natural resources. Believe me, most belgians know they or there ancestors were wrong.

The above post, ( The long one by Rahlise) is the most sencible on this thread.

It's refreshing to see so many views represented so sensibly.
I must be used to the irc flame wars. I have to agree rahlise, your viewpoint is very similar to my own. Also Ilich Jkal, this may be off the Belgian press, it is not the "standard" world opinion, which is generally, "blame Britain they were the biggest", which is unreasonable. We see it now with the U.S.A, which now seem to only recieve criticism for wars and regime changes they've started. Naturally, as a Brit, i believe that the colonies are a dreadful mistake, but we never hear about (comparatively) the advances they made into computer technology- internet, anyone? or the medical and engineering achievments that they have made. All we see on reports are the stereotypical, "if it wasn't for us you'd be speaking German/Russian/Japanese!" which only serve to turn us against them, rather than to formulate our own opinion of them as a society.

Thank you for creating Australia, that convict colony, in which I live now. :)

I want to clarify a matter. My opinion is not that Britain was the beacon of civilization for 200-300 years. My opinion is the one that says "my opinion" at the end. Also as pointed out it is not "holy beacon" but beacon of civilization. I believe this to be an important distinction.
And Jerusalem. You're welcome! :D

Firstly......Britain is made up of four areas. Scotland, England, N.Ireland and Wales. It is not an 'English' society, so all those who think GB= England....I suggest you read more books.

This is exactly the problem I have with the British. Wales, Scotland, and the Six Counties are not British property. They are the only things left of Britian's global conquest and they refuse to let them go.

Gaeltach. If Scotland ireland and wales are "British property" so is England. Don't you see? Britain is not England. It is The British isles, with the exception of the republic.
Scotland Ireland and Wales are not English properties, as far as I am aware. I know for a fact Scotland isn't due to the 1707 act of union, which joined the 2 countries. The reason England recieves most of the seats in parliament is because, as a country it is far larger than all of Scotland N.I and Wales combined (speaking only of population) Scotland is in fact, over-represented by parliament, as it recieves more seats in than it should. The average seat in Scotland has far less people in it than the average English seat, yet has exactly the same power. Also, economically, we need each other. We do not produce enough goods individually to be significantly financially independant from each other.
Are you from the republic Gaeltach? Could you explain why you want Britain dimantled. Would you like to see The falklands as Argentinian or British? Would you like to see Gibralter as Spanish?
(Don't read the questions as being overly aggresive. I'm just to lazy to word them in a more calm way.)

Gaeltach. If Scotland ireland and wales are "British property" so is England. Don't you see? Britain is not England. It is The British isles, with the exception of the republic.
Scotland Ireland and Wales are not English properties, as far as I am aware. I know for a fact Scotland isn't due to the 1707 act of union, which joined the 2 countries. The reason England recieves most of the seats in parliament is because, as a country it is far larger than all of Scotland N.I and Wales combined (speaking only of population) Scotland is in fact, over-represented by parliament, as it recieves more seats in than it should. The average seat in Scotland has far less people in it than the average English seat, yet has exactly the same power. Also, economically, we need each other. We do not produce enough goods individually to be significantly financially independant from each other.
Are you from the republic Gaeltach? Could you explain why you want Britain dimantled. Would you like to see The falklands as Argentinian or British? Would you like to see Gibralter as Spanish?
(Don't read the questions as being overly aggresive. I'm just to lazy to word them in a more calm way.)

NI is an English property, it is claimed as part of the commonwealth. I can't speak for Wales and Scotland officially. Sadly, I don't live in Ireland, but as an Irishwoman, I want nothing more than the Six Counties returned.

I apologise for an ambiguous answer, but your argument is unclear to me.

Technically Wales IS part of England, because it was conquered in the 13hundreds. Scotland isn't, but is part of the Great Britain, which was formed after the Union of the Crowns, and the Union of the Parliaments (I cannot remeber when that happened). This is why the Union Jack is a mixure of the crosses of St. Andrew and St. George, and why there is nothing Welsh on it. As far as I know, NI hold a position similar to Wales (ie part of England). Wales and Ireland were taken before the Union of the Parliaments, by the English, so are still technically Englaish.

as for the Random possessions, They are British, because they were taken after the formation of Britain.

i am very hurt that most people are not proud of everything to do with the empire, the boer war was a great victory if they had surrendered when we told them to then their population would have remained intact. if india had never revolted then we would not have had to supress them so as you must see the problem in the world at the time was not the empire but it was the people whom we were governing, if they had just realised that they were better of with us than without then alot less people would have died. if the local scum such as the americans had learned that remaining in the empire would have been better in the long run and had they never revolted then there would have been no world wars millions would have been saved so as you can see the world should be sore at america and not the empire for many nasty little things in the worlds past

i am very hurt arr, diddumsthat most people are not proud of everything to do with the empire Including Concentration Camps?

, the boer war was a great victory if they had surrendered when we told them to then their population would have remained intact.
If you left them alone then their population would remain intact too, so would the British population come to think about it.

if india had never revolted then we would not have had to supress them so as you must see the problem in the world at the time was not the empire but it was the people whom we were governing,
Riiiight :roll: . Somehow I think you are simplifying History to a dangerous extent.
if they had just realised that they were better of with us than without then alot less people would have died
The American, Boers, Canadian etc, managed well enough without the Empire. Also it is not as if the indigenous populations lot increased because of the British being around.
if the local scum such as the americans had learned that remaining in the empire would have been better in the long run and had they never revolted then there would have been no world wars millions would have been saved so as you can see the world should be sore at america and not the empire for many nasty little things in the worlds past

Such a pity that the world didn't have this guy:
http://www.campchaos.com/othershows/twistedmojo/history02.html
Also if you study the causes of the WW I the Empire still being intact probably wouldn't have stopped it.

Gaeltach. If the six counties wanted to be part of the republic as much as you obviously do, then they would declare themselves independant, like the U.S.A, and British public opinion would probably defend them, because it would seem the practise of forcing countries that don't want to be part of us to be us seems to be over.
You did not answer whether you would like to see argentina own the Falklands or the Spanish to own Gibralter

They were not randomly chosen possesion, as both of them have been subject to debate, and war. Argentina says it has a claim to the falklands, and the Spanish want Gibralter back.

But anyhow, empires have generally been good things. Even the Mongols, renowned for their savage conquest, were good because they truely did link east and west (Marco Polo, anyone?). The Romans brought civilization to many parts of Europe that needed it. Alexander united everywhere from Greece to India, creating a common culture that has influences over most areas of the world. The various Chinese dynasties brought the unity much longed for by the Chinese. The Spanish virtually created the new world.

I can see your points on the other empires, but I'm appalled that you include the Spanish. The Spanish created the New World by adventurist genocide and slavery; okay, so the Aztecs and Incas (also empires, you'll note) were just as bad, but that justifies nothing.
The Spanish were certainly a little worse than the others. But they had a tremendous impact, no less. They made a large part of the Americas speak Spanish. It created an influx of goods from the Orient now that they had more gold and silver, which could be conviniently traded at their colony, the Philipines. And they also shifted the balance of power in Europe until about 1600, but even then, they had a very long, and very slow decline.
Besides, one could argue that they were one of the first sources in the West of humanitarians. There was one priest (forgot his name), who convinced the Spanish government to stop using Natives as slaves. Ironically, he could also be credited to creating the trans-Atlantic slave trade. He suggested using Africans for slaves, who were use to hard work more than the Incas or Aztecs. He later regretted saying that. Nevertheless, however, Spain had an impact.

Besides, one could argue that they were one of the first sources in the West of humanitarians. There was one priest (forgot his name), who convinced the Spanish government to stop using Natives as slaves.

Bartolome de las Casas?

Besides, one could argue that they were one of the first sources in the West of humanitarians. There was one priest (forgot his name), who convinced the Spanish government to stop using Natives as slaves.

Bartolome de las Casas?
Yes, that's him. Thank you.

If you think about it, we needed an empire.
Reason. If we had no empire, and so no holdings, we would be a small, strategically important isle, with a small population. So any European country with an empire (Thats most of them) could say, Britain, small island, low possibility of defence easy target? We'll have them. Then Britain would be a colony, and i would rather be an empire than a colony.

Purly. i read one of the earliests posts you made, saying the Americans were the moneymakers of the empire. You could not be any more wrong!
We hardly got anything from you. We got 1 shilling per month per person from you. As opposed to 26 from india.
We taxed you because we needed to sail 3000 miles to you every time the French or spaniards attacked. We thought that you would find this reasonable. Having to pay your dues. We should have left you to the French. And waited for the cries for help, jumped in and recolonised you.
still, whats done is done.

The british empire was the best!

We should build a new one!

Think about it.
400 years ago, Africa largely consisted of tribes and suchlike.
Nowadays, it still consists of tribes and suchlike. Its not as if any of them were alive 100 years ago, so what do they have to be so bitter about?
Now, if they put their minds to it, they can have education, an extensive economy, (there is so much untapped resources there- we know, we found them) All the water they need, (all this it takes 5 hours walking a day to get to clean water- why not just pick up your belongings and move out? it can't take too long to build a mud hut, and you would be near the water). There were concentration camps, which were appaling, but they were built in order to put the resistance somewhere (an awful excuse but it passed 200 years ago) India was commanded by brutal warlords, now it has infrastructure, economy, a chance for a far better economy if they try, all the bitterness in India was due to the flag that flew there.
On top of that we gave the world the advancements that let us live today in relative ease such as the computer, the train, the steam engine, an accurate map of the human body, the television. Then we saved the world from nazi Germany, and after that, we pulled out of colonial territories relatively peacefully.

Yeah, Partition was a peaceful pullout all right.

If you think about it, we needed an empire.
Reason. If we had no empire, and so no holdings, we would be a small, strategically important isle, with a small population. So any European country with an empire (Thats most of them) could say, Britain, small island, low possibility of defence easy target? We'll have them. Then Britain would be a colony, and i would rather be an empire than a colony.

Wasn't this why we built the world's biggest navy? "Low possibility of defence" isn't terribly accurate. Small island-big navy-how do you invade?

If we had no colonial ambitions, the navy would be overcome by navies with colonial ambitions, as we would not be able to hold a navy of that size without the amount of funds available to an empire.

Lots of people have been defending the British Empire because it 'civilised' places.

I'm sorry but does that sound really arrogant to you?

I get that kind of feeling when Americans start talking about communists. It's like the only possible view on a subject is yours and that the natives with a different culture are miss guided children who don't know any better. Secondly isn't getting opressed by the British the same as being opressed by local despots? Thirdly did we really have to divide and conquer a third of the world's population to give them the railway?

If you call existing a civilization then go ahead, but i think that if your crowning achievment is to chart the buffalo across a continent, as opposed to inventing the modern world then i hardly think it counts

I have nothing against modern day Britain. However its history has had its shakey moments. For example Ireland. I am Irish so I know about Irish history. Now I am glad they took us over because otherwise I'd be speaking Irish like some bogger but they did rule us brutally for many years. Not that I hold it against anyone today. But just like that I wouldn't thank them for forcing us to speak English (thank god) because it wasn't them that did it.

Jay, are you N.I or republic?
Could you tell me if most of N.I would
a: rather stay part of Britain
b: Be part of the republic
c: Be a non-brit non-republic independant

I don't know, I don't think it's due. But I don't know much about Britain.

Jay, are you N.I or republic?
Could you tell me if most of N.I would
a: rather stay part of Britain
b: Be part of the republic
c: Be a non-brit non-republic independant

As far as I can remember from my Politics A-level course, it is about
40% for republic
52%fro Britian
8%Autonomous State.

.

So N.I even though it is only a small majority would like to stay part of Britain. There you go. The majority do not want to be the republic. So i don't think that we should go "giving them back" to you. As well as the fact that Ireland was far more clan-based then, and there was no republic for us to take N.I from. whilst gaeltach you may want N.I to be part of the republic most of them don't (if only just)

The only reason Africa is so screwed up is becuase of bad leadership, take Zimbabwe for example, it used to know as the breadbasket of Africa, but Mugabe comes to power and it becomes a starving and oppressed country, this change happened because of Mugabe.
We send poor and struggling African nation monetary aid, and their leaders(some, not all) spend it and buying weaponsand expanding their military, instead of helping their populus.
Now if there were some good leaders who had the sense to try to develop their country, then Africa would be a much better continent ( it's not a country)

Excellent thread Jordaxia! A good selection of poll questions as well. The results so far have surprised me around 66% have an at least somewhat favorable view of the Empire. I voted for the “beacon of civilization” choice because even though I think the choice you selected is accurate it seems to me to be a little redundant unless one believes in a Utopia, because its true that all societies have “their poorer moments”, the thing I find amazing is how few have a large share of noble moments to their credit such as Britain does.

I have to slightly disagree with one point Rahlise made because he seems to confuse two different ideas. He first says that 300 years ago all nations had an “every nation for himself attitude” then he compares that to a group of Africans letting their homes burn down because they has an “every man for himself attitude.” Every nation for itself and every man for himself are not the same things at all. The British could have never built the empire if they had not been able to work together. They were known for being great administrators and organizers. They were able to transplant their civilization in mass many thousands of miles which required an unprecedented movement of men and materials. If this is characteristic behavior in Chad then that is a result of their own cultural weakness and doesn’t bear any resemblance to Britain that was able to organize fire companies from the 1600’s(and before maybe) on up to today. Britons in the past didn’t view all people as being equally close to them or having the same interests, and I think they were right.

I think its mistake for anyone who loves Britain and her history to turn this excellent thread into an attack on the United States. Now if you hate Britain, her past and wish to see the United Kingdom disassembled then I understand why you would seek to create disunity between the two. Because the more Britain disassociates herself from America the more power Brussels and the Franco/German EU Axis will have over her. America in many ways is an extension of Britain. America and her social, cultural, religious and political institutions are descended common British heritage. Britain should be seeking closer ties with all nations that she shares a common history, language, and culture with. It’s fine to have trade with EU nations but we need to prevent the continual erosion of parliament’s sovereignty and roll back where EU law has taken primacy over UK law.

I’m NOT saying everything the United States does it right or everything it does is in Britain’s interest. I think it’s wiser to prefer an alliance with the United States rather than being ruled by Europe though.

If you think the Empire was a force for good and the people that built it should be honored please feel free to move to the region, “British Empire.”

Ok, I haven't read the whole thread cos quite frankly I haven't got the time. But I think the British Empire was great and as for the civilisation part it depends on your point of view.
If you think about it many countries still want to be associated with Britain; Gibralta is still under British rule and the people want to be, the Queen is the head of state of Austrailia and (i think) Canada.
The Commonwealth is basically whats left of the Bristish Empire and the Queen is its figurehead.

Now consider this Blair wants Britain to join Europe and to get rid of our monarchy.
What would happen to all the countries that are not British but want to keep the Queen as their monarch/head of state?

This is true, in many ways. I believe that ties with America are to be desired in many practical terms as well, not least from an economic point of view. The Franco/German alliance i believe to be our biggest threat as well, as they are the ones who come closest to overthrowing our sovereignty (through the E.U or inevitable U.S.E) The continental Europeans have not once had our interests at heart, as we are not European, in essence. We have a culture that is different to many Europeans, as we have developed in more isolated way. Also, E.U legislation has taken many rights from Westminster that I believe that we should maintain. As a believer in the death sentence, it dismays me to see that we cannot bring it back due to E.U law, decided In Brussels, Paris, and Berlin. We have not fought against these powers for 300 years simply to be absorbed by them. I believe that the commonwealth and the united states should be our closest allies, as these countries have shared our evolution as a nation either closely, or first hand. I also believe that we should be the nation given the title of world policeman, as we have close ties to much of the world, and have a more impartial opinion than the Americans, for the most part. I also feel that the Americans are far too heavy handed, and that the international community has, rightly or wrongly more respect for us. Foreign policy is another matter that we should be more assertive with. Take Mugabe for example. I think that when Iraq is over, we should give him 2 weeks to stand down or a task force will be sent.
Finally, world debt. It does not take a genius to realise that this is holding back Africa to a signifivant degree. It would make sound economic advice, to me anyway, to cancel debt owed to us, and to give a gift recovery package, in return for exclusive trading rights in the countries. With the huge amount of raw materials available, it would help Africa, (and due to the large proportion of countries from Africa in it) the commonwealth, and would do no end of good to the British economy, in other words, we would win all round.

Sadly, I don't live in Ireland, but as an Irishwoman, I want nothing more than the Six Counties returned.

What difference can it possibly make to you who owns a poxy bit of land on the other side of the world!? They don't even want to be returned.

Cancelling world debt is nice in theory but unfortunately it wouldn't work. Some of the poor countries have rich goverments and it is these rulers who are depriving their people not the rest of the world. Also in the worst situtations the aid packages don't actually reach the people they are seized by the governments which then sell the packages to their own people at a high cost.

There is a point not often considered. Gibralter would likely become Spanish and the Falklands argentinian. both would be tremendously unhappy about this. The E.U is a direct threat to Britain unless it is curtailed. It should remain simply as a network for trade (with any currency, not just the "Euro" and as an advisory board. Many U.K politicians want to be in Europe as if we are missing out, but there is no real reason for this. An example of European legislature that is distinctly biased against us is fishing laws. E.U legislation prevents Scottish fishermen from fishing most of the year, whilst other Europeans can come to the North sea (our waters) and fish anytime. Why? This is to replenish cod stocks. Somehow when Spain fishes in our waters the stock doesnt decrease. Another is that Europe is wanting us to contribute to Frances pension fund. I say do it themselvesm, i don't see them offering to pay the cost for our men to go to Iraq, so why should we sustain them. And this is the crucial point of the argument. We are rich. Richer than any other country in Europe (except Russia, if you include it) and they need us to pay for them. And with the best trained army in Europe (though given what happened in Iraq not the best equipped) we are necessary for their defence (Germany, the second strongest country in Europe is prohibeted from carrying Nuclear weapons, though it is naive to believe they have none.) If Europe was looking out for us, how do the E.U justify
1: mocking the NHS, which is free to all (I believe it is only us an South Africa)
2: France and Germany telling us we cannot have as much influence as they have
If somehow there are any MEPs reading this who can justify it, please do. If there aren't could somebody else?

There is a point not often considered. Gibralter would likely become Spanish and the Falklands argentinian. both would be tremendously unhappy about this. The E.U is a direct threat to Britain unless it is curtailed. It should remain simply as a network for trade (with any currency, not just the "Euro" and as an advisory board. Many U.K politicians want to be in Europe as if we are missing out, but there is no real reason for this. An example of European legislature that is distinctly biased against us is fishing laws. E.U legislation prevents Scottish fishermen from fishing most of the year, whilst other Europeans can come to the North sea (our waters) and fish anytime. Why? This is to replenish cod stocks. Somehow when Spain fishes in our waters the stock doesnt decrease. Another is that Europe is wanting us to contribute to Frances pension fund. I say do it themselvesm, i don't see them offering to pay the cost for our men to go to Iraq, so why should we sustain them. And this is the crucial point of the argument. We are rich. Richer than any other country in Europe (except Russia, if you include it) and they need us to pay for them. And with the best trained army in Europe (though given what happened in Iraq not the best equipped) we are necessary for their defence (Germany, the second strongest country in Europe is prohibeted from carrying Nuclear weapons, though it is naive to believe they have none.) If Europe was looking out for us, how do the E.U justify
1: mocking the NHS, which is free to all (I believe it is only us an South Africa)
2: France and Germany telling us we cannot have as much influence as they have
If somehow there are any MEPs reading this who can justify it, please do. If there aren't could somebody else?

i know i am going a little bit off topic here talking about the eu. personally, i think if britain joins the eu, she would benefit from a greater economy and access to the countries within. i do agree with jordaxanian outposts about the eu not having britains best interests at heart though.... it has to do with the system of government that they are debating right now. the way it is set up now is similar to the US senate in which every nation has one vote, but france and germany is trying to change that by giving bigger nations (i dont know the threshold) two votes instead of one. i have no problems with the eu itself and the people of its member countries, however i have problems with the way they are running the government. i would say if britain is to join the eu, not to do so unless their congress or whatever theyre calling it is represenative of the population, and is elected directly by the peole themselves, same for the eu president, vice president, etc.

all in all though, i would have to say that the british empire was a shining beacon of civilization while it was in power. i would have to say that parts of the world MIGHT be better off if there was a colonial power there that respected the indigeous culture(s) and treated the people of the colony as full citizens of the country complete with representation in the government.

It may interest people to know that just prior to the first world war, as the empire approached its peak, a motion was going through parliament which would have permanently integrated the colonies of New Zealand, Canada and Australia into Britain, in a similar way to the act of union which formed Britain.
What are the views of any Aussies, new Zealanders or Canadians on this. Would you have been happy if this had taken place, or would you feel like protesting in the streets. Just remember you would have seats at parliament and all that stuff

Catholic Europe. Patriotism may be the root of all evil, but we need patriotism to advance. If we had no higher loyalty then we would be living in a feudal society, and likely everything that comes with it, probably including plague

That's not true. You don't have to lvoe one country to go forward. All you have to do, for society to advance is for people to want it to advance - it's got nothing to do with whether you are patriotic or not.

Not in the conventional sense you don't.
However it was patriotism that pulled us out of the dark ages, as a way to get one over another country.
New technology is another way to get one over a Country.
Think about France during the hundred years war, for example.
France, as a divided unit was being annihilated by England, using the longbow. (Which is not new technology, but superior to a crossbow or shortbow) The longbow was used intensively to provide many victories (Agincourt?) and patriotism binded the forces into a cohesive force.
There is no doubt that France would have lost without gaining a sense of patriotism, and that England would have done so well without it.

To the person who says that the individual actions of those Africans bears no relations to the attitude of the country as a whole is wrong. That kind of attitude displayed is exactly the kind of attitude that is pervasiv in that country.

The British Empire is cool in my book, simply for the movie Zulu. Plus, it spawned our country, so I'm on board. :wink:

Firstly, patriotism has a very strong power to motivate soldiers (and civilians) to work harder and fight for 'Queen and Country,' after all, what's a national anthem for?
Also, I do consider the slave trade and oppression by the the British Empire to be horrific, but we must remember that 300 years ago, standards were different. Perhaps in another 300 years, massacres and torture of 'inferior races' (as happened in the slave trade) will occur again, and we will suffer as a result, because, views are constantly changing, sometimes, such extremities are deemed necessary (France's Jacobin government).
As I am British, I believe that without the existence of the British government, we would all speak french, worship a statue of Napolean, and wouldn't be half as civilised. (most people, anyway).

In the last paragraph, I meant without the British Empire, not the government!

Patriotism may be the root of all evil, but we need patriotism to advance. If we had no higher loyalty then we would be living in a feudal society, and likely everything that comes with it, probably including plague

How exactly would a lack of patriotism result in the feudal system?

It would be difficult to work backwards, but runs forward fairly smoothly.
In medieval times, (days of yore) people were loyal to their lord, correct?
This is the fundamental essense of a feudal society, loyalty to a lord, who is loyal to the king.
With Patriotism however, people are not loyal to the lord, but to the King/Emperor/Govt.
Since before patriotism there was only a feudal system, without patriotism, it would not change. (there is only 3 "styles" -bad choice of word- in this way. Anarchy-no loyalty-, feudalism and patriotism. Anarchy is only really possible in the event of a breakdown of civilization, as even at the most basic level humans are ordered into a heirarchy.
Tribal law is a pure feudalism, as nobody has any loyalty to other than the tribe. This could also be said to be pure patriotism, as the tribe leader is the king of a realm (his tribe) though it is far smaller than your average kings. Take your pick.
(its a bad explanation, but the words were not in my head.)

I would have to argue that patriotism is not loyalty for the king/emperor/govt. If that was the case, then you would let your govt run right over you and trample your rights. I would say that patriotism is loyalty for your country, because you can hate the person whos running it, yet at the same time love your country. EX: George W. Bush... half of this country hates him, but wants whats best for the country.

It would be difficult to work backwards, but runs forward fairly smoothly.
In medieval times, (days of yore) people were loyal to their lord, correct?
This is the fundamental essense of a feudal society, loyalty to a lord, who is loyal to the king.
With Patriotism however, people are not loyal to the lord, but to the King/Emperor/Govt.
Since before patriotism there was only a feudal system, without patriotism, it would not change. (there is only 3 "styles" -bad choice of word- in this way. Anarchy-no loyalty-, feudalism and patriotism. Anarchy is only really possible in the event of a breakdown of civilization, as even at the most basic level humans are ordered into a heirarchy.
Tribal law is a pure feudalism, as nobody has any loyalty to other than the tribe. This could also be said to be pure patriotism, as the tribe leader is the king of a realm (his tribe) though it is far smaller than your average kings. Take your pick.
(its a bad explanation, but the words were not in my head.)

Actually, if I interpret you right, it only works backward, and not forwards at all. The people weren't exactly loyal to the lords - it worked the other way; the lords owned the people, or at least, the land they lived on, which effectively worked out the same.

Under the feudal system, the king owns all the land. He leases out parts of it to vassal lords, who in return provide him with loyal service (i.e. military service, taxes, etc.). They in turn lease land out to lower vassals, again, in return for service. Their vassals do the same, until you get to the lowest rung of society, the peasants. This results in a pyramid hierarchy, with the king at the top, the various degrees of nobility in the middle, and the peasants at the bottom, who are basically little more than slaves, because they don't have any vassals to do their work for them.

If there is a lack of patriotism in this system, then it is a result, and not a cause. The people do not have any political freedoms whatsoever, and loyalty doesn't have much to do with it - if they don't obey the person who has been given lordship over their lands, then they are punished.

This system would not arise if the people of a country suddenly became completely unpatriotic. Lack of patriotism does not mean you don't care how you are governed. The feudal system occurs where people have no choice how they are governed.

Made a little mistake there.
I meant "It would br difficult to !Describe! it working back the way"
Its hard to see that a patriotic society would become feudal. Easy to see a feudal becoming patriotic.
I didn't necessarily mean loyalty to king/govt.
But in the beginning of patriotism those ideas were practically the same.
Love of King/love of country were often similar.

Well, that's more or less how I interpreted. You can only describe it going back that way - by the leasing of land to vassals, rather than loyalty to a lord.

My point is simply that lack of patriotism will not lead to the feudal system. I can't imagine the feudal system ever arising again in the west, regardless of the apathy of people.

Should have been a "Should have left other cultures alone" option, instead of murder/rape

I think that there is no point in taking collective pride or shame for events that my ancestors had no role in. I'm fairly sure that my ancestors, like most ordinary people were putting up with the same old crap that we put up with now while still being asked to swallow some ilusory sense of 'pride'. Pride for what? these were 'achievements' carried out by the British state and assorted bastards. The British history I am proud of is the histroy not often told. The diggers, the Chartists, the Tolypuddle Martyrs, The working classes killed at waterloo. The workers behind 'new unionism' That's my history.

I think you mean 'The working classes killed at Peterloo' - mid nineteenth century when dragoons charged unarmed civilian protesters in Manchester.

Big Hip Hip Hooray for the British for how they ploughed true those natives who were armed to the teeth with sticks.Jolly good show lads.

Big Hip Hip Hooray for the British for how they ploughed true those natives who were armed to the teeth with sticks.Jolly good show lads.

Sorry, I think you're getting us mixed up with the Americans in the late 19th, early 20th century, oh and lets not forget all of the many instances since..... :evil:

What can one say? The past is the past and no one can change it. No one should try to make someone feel guilty for things their civilzation did over a century ago. Why can't they instead thank the Brits for their advances in radio technology at the beginning of the 20th century, or maybe even their staunch defense of Europe throughout the 20th century to today. Perhaps they could thank the British for the spectactular medical advances that have occured in their country and are still occuring today. Anyone who blames another culture for what they did hundreds of years ago is a racist. There, I said it.

Also, in retrospect. All those other people are just jealous their cultures couldn't do anything. In the 19th century, the British empire occupied ALL OF CHINA with very few soldiers.. I believe somewhere around 34,000 (not many when you consider the size of China.

Big Hip Hip Hooray for the British for how they ploughed true those natives who were armed to the teeth with sticks.Jolly good show lads.

Sorry, I think you're getting us mixed up with the Americans in the late 19th, early 20th century, oh and lets not forget all of the many instances since..... :evil:

Nope.

Also, in retrospect. All those other people are just jealous their cultures couldn't do anything. In the 19th century, the British empire occupied ALL OF CHINA with very few soldiers.. I believe somewhere around 34,000 (not many when you consider the size of China.

Retrospect is a great thing.Unfortunately you make poor use of it.

Big Hip Hip Hooray for the British for how they ploughed true those natives who were armed to the teeth with sticks.Jolly good show lads.

Sorry, I think you're getting us mixed up with the Americans in the late 19th, early 20th century, oh and lets not forget all of the many instances since..... :evil:

Nope.

Oh, alright, we'll take responsibility for the oppression of native americans as well, then.

Big Hip Hip Hooray for the British for how they ploughed true those natives who were armed to the teeth with sticks.Jolly good show lads.

Sorry, I think you're getting us mixed up with the Americans in the late 19th, early 20th century, oh and lets not forget all of the many instances since..... :evil:

Nope.

Oh, alright, we'll take responsibility for the oppression of native americans as well, then.

Well like America was a British colony for a bit so like ye can if ye want accept that ye began the oppression of the Native Americans who were doing swimmingly well until ye traipsed over.

Um. Lets see. who sided with Britain in any war against the colonies?
The natives. So don't act like you saved them, because you were worse.

Big Hip Hip Hooray for the British for how they ploughed true those natives who were armed to the teeth with sticks.Jolly good show lads.

Sorry, I think you're getting us mixed up with the Americans in the late 19th, early 20th century, oh and lets not forget all of the many instances since..... :evil:

Nope.

Oh, alright, we'll take responsibility for the oppression of native americans as well, then.

Well like America was a British colony for a bit so like ye can if ye want accept that ye began the oppression of the Native Americans who were doing swimmingly well until ye traipsed over.

If I accept responsibility for that, by that same token, I'll take all the credit for the current strength of the US economy as well.

Go ahead. It's not as if I get jealous about nations more powerful than my own, I just plot against them. And nobody said that it was the current generation that has to take responsibility for it, just that you have to acknowledge that the blame lies on your nation, like we always have to for the slave trade (though we ended it before any western nation)
or all this genocide, everybody else was genocidal (Spain and the Aztecs and so on). Thats not an excuse, just that we get blamed for 19th century evildoings, though we were far better than most other nations, and others blame us because we were biggest.

Go ahead. It's not as if I get jealous about nations more powerful than my own, I just plot against them. And nobody said that it was the current generation that has to take responsibility for it, just that you have to acknowledge that the blame lies on your nation, like we always have to for the slave trade (though we ended it before any western nation)

Bah, I just realised there was no context in the last 3 or so posts I made. I'm english, I should point out.