NationStates Jolt Archive


Why I detest arrogant British dolts

The Class A Cows
30-10-2004, 00:35
[NOTE: READ THE OTHER THREAD FIRST. THIS IS A PARODY OF AN EQUALLY ARROGANT, AND FAR MORE HISTORICALLY INACCURATE POST]







British imperialist nostalgia is inherently idiotic. All they did was take the existing Dutch empire and removed the old values of religious freedom and limited democracy in favor of policies designed to better exploit their colonial gains. British mentality is obvious inherently designed on seeing others as inferior and not understanding that they too can become civilized, powerful nations. Before I do begin I would like to make it clear that I am South African and really DO dislike the British empire's history, as they put my ancestors in concentration camps, so if you would like to accuse me of that, you're welcome to. Besides, England has sucky food. Its not that English food itself bad, its just that whenever food is prepared in England

British Ignorance : Yes I know part of the taxes went to covering the first war with the Spanish but HA! There was a long series of diffrent taxes, including silly ones on things like stamps and certain other food products. So peaceful protests began to occur, which the British clamped down on with force. Consequently, Americans began using terrorist tactics to retaliate against the British, and began to employ the use of new technologies like "rifles" to help repel them in spite of a far more inferior fighting force, which, although managed by rich aristocrats, was for the most part a very poor fighting force heavily burdened by British taxes. So, just or not, they revolted. And they won, joy. The British commited massive war crimes, destroying entire towns. The Americans did the same. Nobody seemed to care much then but the winner got to tell the story, so it all works out. Brits suck, USA rules. w00t. As to an entire nation being united against Britain? Any good American textbook will tell you about prison ships on which the loyalists were incarcerated on. The American War of Independance was indeed about liberty, however, and these crimes avoided far worse ones later on when the British empire became highly racist and almost psychotic in its behaviour, hardly caring at all for the lives of their own in some cases. And, despite a certain stalker's complaint, the Americans have throughout history either been with Britain and against France, or against Britain and with France. They have never been exclusively allied or opposed to Britain, and only rarely would maintain the stance of either supporting or opposing both France and Britain. When they do, it usually means the USA ends up winning a war. The numerous Dutch, British, Norwegian, German, Irish, Finnish, Swedish, and French colonists stabbed their oppressors in the back and drove the knife in deep by adopting the same Dutch laws the British destroyed earlier. For that they should NEVER be forgiven, according to arrogant, misinformed British dolts who post laughable threads on NationStates General, because obviously concepts like religious freedom are very un-British things to do, and of course, what became the US was exclusively British in spite of some cities having names which honored kings and cities of other nations, a good example being "Nieuw Amsterdam," now known as "New York." The arrogant Brit who I so detest believes that Americans prized self-interest more than the British did. I invite him to read about British actions in India, which make Andrew Jackson's activities against Native Americans look like minor disciplinary reprimands, and the American revolution look like a silly practical joke.

World War Two: The American version of this war is like so: Europeans doomed to tyranny and oppression forever, heroic American GIs save the hopeless Europeans, hooray war ends. This can be seen in any number of their history books and their films (like Saving Private Ryan for example). That story is a not the exact truth, but US force could not be discounted. The reason America came into the war wasn't to preserve liberty and freedom, it was in fact because they were attacked by the ambitious Japanese empire and also had experienced trouble with German naval engagements. No American history lessons tells us we were not neutral for the first parts, and none considers this dishonorable. Many in fact admire the fact that we maintained neutrality and didnt fall into the pattern of bickering Europeans. The British intervened because they knew they had to attack either Russia or Germany in order to provide a lethargic response for what happened in Poland and meekly attacked Germany, with their only standout efforts having been a few percision bombing raids. Germany, in a continued lust over naval dominance of the area, wasnt displeased by the British throwing themselves in harm's way. So they had no hesitation virtually bombing Britain to the ground, using some of the first cruise missles ever seen in battle. This caused great panic and near total ruin for British efforts, which consequently became more lethargic. Britain could have pulled out of he war at any time, and probably would have considering how badly they were being owned by a combination of bombing and famine, the Germans were indeed offering them terms that would allow them to preserve most of our Empire. But no! Britain kept fighting the war instead of submitting and accepting surrender terms. Apparently the losses were far too great for Britain to endure under those terms, but of course they had no objection to advocating ridiculous terms on Germany. That shows the fundamental difference between Americans and British. Britain fought for maligned principles engineered to expand themselves in harmful ways, Americans fought for themselves to protect their interests abroad. When they finally entered the war, a great deal of work was already done. America, recognizing the threat on its trade interests in Europe, immediately commenced massive bombing and air raids from Britain utilizing it's sheer industrial power, which could only be compared with Russia's. Hitler was unable to properly mobilize his superior technologies because the Americans mercilessly destroyed their infrastructure in massive maves of carpet bombing, something the British didnt have the guts to do. Americans showed their ingenuity with inferior technologies, learning to exploit weaknesses of German tactics and aircraft, and defeating more technologically refined German and Japanese equipment simply by discovering a tradition of making ridiculously durable vechiles. These massive waves from the USA and USSR crippled Germany and forced them into the same ruin faced by Britain. You could even say they won the war. During the last two years, it was of absolute importance to secure as much of Europe from the Communist powers to the east. Churchill (a man with 44 years experience in the European political scene) told the Americans that they had to capture many parts of Europe in order to prevent Communist tyranny. He was not humored by the Americans who wanted to take a central, just position on peacetime negotiations and although they had similar fears of the USSR, did not let those affect their judgements. Central Europe would spend the next 60 years under the tyrannical rule of Communism thanks to fair treaties, an unfortunate consequence of Britain choosing to attack the seemingly weaker Germany over Russia when they choose which invader to persecute after Poland. Not that this really matters since most Americans acknowledge the efforts of European powers, and only ignorant British dolts tend to think we teach that we won singlehandedly. We just have an old policy of seeing Europe as a danger zone of conflict and stupid vendettas, and dont pay that much attention to them anyway. US history is more interesting, honestly.

The British Empire: One point to start my ranting: the American Revolution was not "the funeral toll of the British Empire" as so many Yank historians believe, according to arrogant British dolts who know nothing of American Historians. The British Empire went on for over 150 years after the American Revolution so I would hardly call it a funeral. The British Empire (contary to nonexistant Yank propaganda arrogant British dolts accuse us of forwarding) was actually the most liberal empire ever seen on the face of the earth, except for the Dutch, the Greeks, the Austro-Hungarians, the Germans (pre-WWII,) the Prussians, The Romans, the Arabs, and possibley even the Mongolians. Slavery was non existent within the British Empire by 1850, having first been banned in 1806, but they mistreated virtual slaves (coolies) and exploited what was in fact nothing short of slave labor. Members of the colonies were not surpressed by the British Army as the British Army was too small to enact such a large scale act of oppression. The British instead built local forces and inserted new police divisions who were often much more brutal than the British Army could be. With British technology and British money and British expertise, they took over the failed possesions of earlier European empires, a few of which turned the conveniently new British into industrial power houses in time for the takeover. India remains to this day largely impoverished and has maintained some post-colonial resentment of the British, but since the British left the government became increasingly more tolerant and the cynicism drastically decreased, and they also recieved much assistance from the Soviet Union and the United States, eventually building a nation which now challenges China as the center of power in the far east.

American Cultural Invasion : Let me tell you something British people are always complaining about. They dont "want" our cheap, mass produced fast food, which is something largely inspired by an old British idea of cooking being a "status impediment," causing middle classes to begin exploring "fast foods," which became popular in the United States where long hours and fast pace caused this to find an important niche. They complain about immoral television shows and propaganda films, the latest of which were often inspired by Brits and are usually aimed at people with no taste. They complain about the success of the American system of social capitalism, which they are beginning to adopt to remain competitive. Nevermind the fact that the British brutally repressed other cultures and, although they did seek to preserve them, often did so only when they thought it wasnt worth doing anything worthwhile to civilize them. Why have not the Welsh, Scottish or Irish cultures not disappeared? Because England stopped brutally persecuting them after a while. America is now using its super power status to invade our shores: not with troops but with their tainted and corrupt culture. To the people of Britain: I admire you very much, you guys sure dont know how to cook and you smoke too much, but you sure seem decent. However, to the ones who constantly bitch about America and the fall of the British empire, which was inviting, as every empire of the time, including the American one which controlled Cuba and the Phillipenes, were horrible influences on the world for the most part. America doesnt seek to destroy native cultures and replace them with its own, but MacDonalds and episodes of Friends, which have little, if anything to do with American culture, are becoming popular among the induhviduals of the world, and people see this as American cultural imperialism. The fact remains that it isnt, so please stop bitching about it.

America allies with whom it chooses, and throughout history has looked down on Europeans as foolish and even stupid. This is not the right thing to do perhaps, but consider your own history and why your own people fled here to escape conflicts which makes Europeans seem so vain and silly. Perhaps you will finally learn something.
The Class A Cows
30-10-2004, 00:50
Bump. As long as British Glory has his turd up there i feel this turd should accompany it.

Threads! I mean threads!
Poderetti
30-10-2004, 01:35
Though I don't agree with your historical analysis completely, thanks for it anyway!

That other post was absolutely absurd, and is now locked. My guess is that its author is under 20, but I wonder: is that some skewed opinion of one lone teenager, or do they teach that in the British schools now? I hope not or things are far worse off then I imagined.
Spookistan and Jakalah
30-10-2004, 01:38
Nah, I took history classes in secondary school over in the UK. They mainly taught the very boring details of sending children to the countryside to stop them getting blitzed.

OK, we weren't only taught that. We also learnt a great deal about trench foot.
TPLAC
30-10-2004, 01:42
Nah, I took history classes in secondary school over in the UK. They mainly taught the very boring details of sending children to the countryside to stop them getting blitzed.

OK, we weren't only taught that. We also learnt a great deal about trench foot.

And mustard gas, that was another one.

We don't get tort politics over here, just fings about the industrial revolution and wot twere like bein' a chimney sweep.
The White Hats
30-10-2004, 01:47
Though I don't agree with your historical analysis completely, thanks for it anyway!

That other post was absolutely absurd, and is now locked. My guess is that its author is under 20, but I wonder: is that some skewed opinion of one lone teenager, or do they teach that in the British schools now? I hope not or things are far worse off then I imagined.
There's anti-americanism, for varied reasons, but in my experience it's a minority opinion. As BG himself said, just look at our high streets, fashions and entertainment if you want to see what most people really think of american culture.

BG's version represents the half-baked opinions of a few lone teenagers and a similar number of embittered adults. It's not taught in schools. In fact it would be derided in schools. Which is probably why BG came across as so bombastic and extreme. It's a defensive thing.
The White Hats
30-10-2004, 01:49
And mustard gas, that was another one.

We don't get tort politics over here, just fings about the industrial revolution and wot twere like bein' a chimney sweep.
And pottery. Don't forget pottery.
TPLAC
30-10-2004, 01:51
And pottery. Don't forget pottery.

I was never taught anything about pottery. The Academic Excellence of Sevenoaks strikes again! You must all know everything there is to know about everything. :D
The White Hats
30-10-2004, 01:57
I was never taught anything about pottery. The Academic Excellence of Sevenoaks strikes again! You must all know everything there is to know about everything. :D
Eh .. I was actually raised in Essex myself. But I still got taught pottery* in handicraft class - that and how to apply go-faster stripes to your car.

*The only thing they ever let us make were ashtrays. That might have been an Essex thing.
TPLAC
30-10-2004, 02:02
At least an ashtray was something functional. The only thing I was allowed to make was a hedgehog shaped pencil holder for woodworking that looked hideous and didn't have big enough holes for holding pencils. I put it in my schoolbag to take home, and my sandwiches tasted of varnish for months.
Bodies Without Organs
30-10-2004, 02:04
Nah, I took history classes in secondary school over in the UK. They mainly taught the very boring details of sending children to the countryside to stop them getting blitzed.

OK, we weren't only taught that. We also learnt a great deal about trench foot.

All I was taught in my history classes were:

1. The Kings and Queens of England (War of the Roses to Queen Anne)
2. The lifestyle of mountain men and trappers in the American West.
3. The history of Ulster 1910-1922 (which was crammed into about two weeks at the end of the term when they obviously realised that they hadn't taught us anything about the country we lived in and we wouldn't have to take history as a compulsory subject the next year.

A truly bizarre selection of topics.
Bodies Without Organs
30-10-2004, 02:06
Eh .. I was actually raised in Essex myself. But I still got taught pottery* in handicraft class - that and how to apply go-faster stripes to your car.

*The only thing they ever let us make were ashtrays. That might have been an Essex thing.


Were there any inter-disciplinary activities like applying go-faster stripes to handmade ashtrays?
TPLAC
30-10-2004, 02:06
2. The lifestyle of mountain men and trappers in the American West.


This is an extremely odd addition to the curriculum. Must have been a slow year for the education board.

Splendid thread hijack, by the way, everybody.
New Anthrus
30-10-2004, 02:07
What I really hated about the last thread was that he failed to realize what the essence of American culture is. It is individual choice. If it's about greed, so be it, but no one in America (at least not the government) stands in the way of choice. I also didn't like that he failed to realize why American culture spread: the British have voted for it with their wallets. Britain was the first to have such economic liberties, and until recently, it was even more liberal than the US economy, and still has a great element of free choice. I'm ashamed that a Brit, who hales from the same country as John Locke, advocates against the spread of American culture, and by implication, free choice.
The White Hats
30-10-2004, 02:09
(From TPAC's post) That's was our art teacher's point of view. As he said, if he'd let us make cups or pots, they'd be disasters and crack and spill their contents all over the place. Whereas we could make a perfectly servicable ashtray and give it to our dads for Christmas, thereby saving ourselves some money. And if our dads didn't smoke, well the teacher was always losing his ashtrays in the clutter of the art room, so he'd take them off our hands.

I ended up taking mine to college. (And breaking it there one drunken evening.)
The White Hats
30-10-2004, 02:12
Were there any inter-disciplinary activities like applying go-faster stripes to handmade ashtrays?
No, but there were combined studies in applied glue sniffing and power tool usage in the woodwork class. That might have been an Essex thing too.
New Anthrus
30-10-2004, 02:18
All I was taught in my history classes were:

1. The Kings and Queens of England (War of the Roses to Queen Anne)
2. The lifestyle of mountain men and trappers in the American West.
3. The history of Ulster 1910-1922 (which was crammed into about two weeks at the end of the term when they obviously realised that they hadn't taught us anything about the country we lived in and we wouldn't have to take history as a compulsory subject the next year.

A truly bizarre selection of topics.
That's sad if that was really all they taught. Britain has such a rich history otherwise.
And why did they teach you about American trappers? I'm American, and no nothing about trapping or trappers, nor do I care to know.
Bodies Without Organs
30-10-2004, 02:18
No, but there were combined studies in applied glue sniffing and power tool usage in the woodwork class. That might have been an Essex thing too.

No, tippex thinners in the back of the French class was the equivalent in Northern Ireland. Probably slightly less fun that using power tools while binned, but also probably somewhat safer.
Bodies Without Organs
30-10-2004, 02:20
That's sad if that was really all they taught. Britain has such a rich history otherwise.

Yeah, the little that I know about the way history is currently taught in the UK - with more of a concentration on the average man in the street and a study of themes through history, such as medicine or industrialisation, seem to be much better than what I was served with in the years 83-86.


And why did they teach you about American trappers? I'm American, and no nothing about trapping or trappers, nor do I care to know.

I think the fact that one of the teachers wrote the text book we were using (in unpublished manuscript form) may have had something to do with it.
The White Hats
30-10-2004, 02:30
No, tippex thinners in the back of the French class was the equivalent in Northern Ireland. Probably slightly less fun that using power tools while binned, but also probably somewhat safer.

Hah. Woodwork was for first years. It was the chemistry practicals supervised, largely in absentia, by an ex-Colonel in the Royal Artillery that put kids in hospital.
Red Wales
30-10-2004, 02:36
but no one in America (at least not the government) stands in the way of choice.

Choice for who? The rich. That is not real choice, thats just choice for a selected few. How can a country that fails to provide free healthcare claim that it provides choice?
Only to the few that can afford it.

And here is a thought for you, if Cuba was a democracy, it would be about 20 places higher then America on terms on human developement.
Sdaeriji
30-10-2004, 02:43
Where is this other thread?
Cogitation
30-10-2004, 02:56
Where is this other thread?
It's linked to from a thread in "Moderation" complaining about it.

iLock pending Moderator review.

Trolling in response to trolling is not acceptable. This topic remains locked.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation