NationStates Jolt Archive

This was a somewhat interesting article from Al Jazeera. Check this out and see if you agree with this guy.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/972FFE74-F7DE-44F0-AB5E-92B47BBDADE7.htm

he does have a point

ALL countries have a horrible past. There is no escaping it. Perhaps though instead of worrying about Iran we should be considering the horrible acts taking place in Sudan and the Congo.

why? what do they have?

why? what do they have?

??????

This is a very interesting article filled with historical truth. Interesting about the nationalities of some of the movie producers, directors. As people move from one country some of the very unhealthy nationalism and excessive national pride, and especially the terrible past that so many would like to forget is given a fresh view.

Every country has done something atrocious in the past.

He is right for the most part. Apart from the axis of evil though. The countries were competing against each other in getting Empires so they weren't an axis. They are also not the only countries ever to dominate others, they were just better at it. Not that there is an excuse of course, not for any of it. We just need to work on sorting the problems out now rather than asigning blame from the past which noone in a position to act now was responsible for. Blame just reinforces the conflict rather than resolving it.

Evey single country in the wester world has commited more attoricities than id like to think about.

Hell the only one that doesn’t have an example that comes to mind is Canada.

Australia killed aborigines and put them in camps still treats them like shit too.

The U.S.A ethnically cleansed most of the Sioux people and many other Indian tribes, not to mention annexing land from the states all around all it.

France had Algeria and indochina.

Britain had India and africa.

China had the cultural revolution and the invasion of tibet.

Japan had camp 231 and the rape of naking

Most of the middle east stones people to death as a punishment for most things.

Get off your god damn high horses

"Axis of Evil" is an equally stupid notion whether it comes from George W. Bush or Al Jazeera.

Edit: And the author's French is terrible. "Le Regard" does not mean "The Return" and it's "la sale guerre" and not "le sale guerre".

We were talking about the exact same subject (colonial break-ups leading to conflict) a few weeks ago at a mosque near my house.

??????

no oil

Why do Americans assume that all Europeans are proud of their countries' violent pasts?

Why do Americans assume that all Europeans are proud of their countries' violent pasts?
I'm not ashamed of the british empire, and i find the idea of being rather repugnant.

I just think its stupid for people to think that countries were infallible back then when they are clearly not now.

Yes the british empire killed a lot of people, it also built a shit load of schools hostiptals and roads as well. Not to mention inventing pretty much eveything.

Why do Americans assume that all Europeans are proud of their countries' violent pasts?

The author is Norwegian.

The author is Norwegian.
Um the vikings killed shead loads of people, wheres his bit on that.

hypocrit:P

I agree with scouserland.

I'm not ashamed of the British Empire. Granted, in creating and maintaining that empire, there were deeds comitted that I don't think anyone is terribly proud of. However to not be proud of the greater acheivments of our national past is completely retarded.

The whole premise for the article - Prince William goes to a party dressed as a zulu therefore all europeans are proud of slaughtering indiginous populations in the past? Prince Harry wears a nazi costume so we're all ignorant of history too?

Granted, Harry was a complete knobhead for wearing that costume to a party, I'm suprised the royal household let him get away with it, but these statements hold no water.

As many have said, no nation is innocent of horrendous bloodshed in its past. The US with the resettlment and murder of native americans, the spanish with the inquisition and practical enslavement of native south american peoples. The list goes on.

While the writer does make some valid points, I'd hardly call this a well balanced article.

Not to mention inventing pretty much eveything.

Such as..?

... the Concentration Camp. ;)

Um the vikings killed shead loads of people, wheres his bit on that.

They only did it to get their stuff, not subdue them (much).

The whole premise for the article - Prince William goes to a party dressed as a zulu therefore all europeans are proud of slaughtering indiginous populations in the past? Prince Harry wears a nazi costume so we're all ignorant of history too?

Not only did Prince William and the elite [those at the "native and colonials" themed party] with their native-mocking costumes pay homage to the military atrocities of their ancestors, but so few in Europe today question the deaths of millions of Africans, Asians, and American Indians.

It didn't appear to me that he was calling all Europeans ignorant of history. But that we tacitly condone what was done in the name of Queen and country by not realising and questioning why we went overseas to subjugate other cultures and kill anyone that looked at us cross-eyed.

Which though I don't agree with, I can certainly see how he comes to this conclusion. Harry's costume was considered outragous and condemned by just about everyone, yet no one thought that the theme of the party was in poor taste or thought that it could be offensive.


While the writer does make some valid points, I'd hardly call this a well balanced article.

Well balanced articles are few and far between. When I come across one I see it as an exception, not the rule.

They only did it to get their stuff, not subdue them (much).

and kill their wymen and rape their livestock and so on

]Not only did Prince William and the elite [those at the "native and colonials" themed party] with their native-mocking costumes pay homage to the military atrocities of their ancestors, but so few in Europe today question the deaths of millions of Africans, Asians, and American Indians.

It didn't appear to me that he was calling all Europeans ignorant of history. But that we tacitly condone what was done in the name of Queen and country by not realising and questioning why we went overseas to subjugate other cultures and kill anyone that looked at us cross-eyed.

Which though I don't agree with, I can certainly see how he comes to this conclusion. Harry's costume was considered outragous and condemned by just about everyone, yet no one thought that the theme of the party was in poor taste or thought that it could be offensive.


Well balanced articles are few and far between. When I come across one I see it as an exception, not the rule.


Harry's costume was in poor taste, but if you start saying that the theme of the party was in poor taste or could be offensive, I really think you need to grow something of a thicker skin.

This growing, obese culture of political correctness is REALLY starting to do my head in.

To me a theme of natives and colonials speaks of things such as zulu warriors or even the colonisation of the americas. All events which happened at least 150 years ago.

As for matters such as India, I really think he's hitting the ball past foul. If you speak to Indians over the British withdrawl in the 40's I doubt many are concerned over the fact that we left so quickly, and are actually happy about the fact that we left in the first place.

As for Harry's costume, don't ask me how that fits in with natives and colonialism. But that aside, the day fancy dress parties become such a sore political subject is the day people really need to shut up, and say, yes, bad stuff happened, but it was a long time ago.

What is next? Banning kids from playing cowboys and indians because its disrespectful to the indians who lost their lives through american expansion to the west coast?

2. Silence in France: A new film is confronting French brutality during Morocco's fight for independence in the mid-1950s. The magnificent film is called Le Regard (The Return), the first of its kind.

The Battle of Algiers?

I know it makes no sense questioning someone who probably cannot reply, but this isn't the first film of its type.

This guy is just trying to create a shitstorm out of nothing. Nobody in the UK is proud of colonialism. I dont think this party was sending any political messages, it was just some people having fun. Leave off the poor bastards, their mum's died and their dad's remarrying. The last thing they need is for the press trying to rip them apart.

and kill their wymen and rape their livestock and so on

No, no, rape the women and kill the livestock.

Ah, good times.

No, no, rape the women and kill the livestock.

Ah, good times.

whichever gets your plane off the ground...those were the days :D

Harry's costume was in poor taste, but if you start saying that the theme of the party was in poor taste or could be offensive, I really think you need to grow something of a thicker skin.

Should we also bring the Black and White Minstrels show back?

This growing, obese culture of political correctness is REALLY starting to do my head in.

Where did I say it was politically incorrect?

To me a theme of natives and colonials speaks of things such as zulu warriors or even the colonisation of the americas. All events which happened at least 150 years ago.

So thats OK?

Am I alowed to be racist towards the Inca's?

Having a native and colonials themed party can be seen as offensive, and can be seen as some posh twats revelling in the subjugation of foreign cultures. And even though I agree with the sentiment that no one has the right not to be offended, and even though I don't really care about about people being offended I think people should know that they are being offensive (and if they still go ahead, more power to them).

I still think the theme was in bad taste though, and find it amusing that these people represent the 'upper class' of this country.

As for Harry's costume, don't ask me how that fits in with natives and colonialism. But that aside, the day fancy dress parties become such a sore political subject is the day people really need to shut up, and say, yes, bad stuff happened, but it was a long time ago.

It is this attitude I think the article was attacking, that we tacitly condone the actions that happened since "it was a long time ago" as if that justifies it. That we don't feel we have to learn from the lessons of the past on the strength that it was the past.

I admit that what was done was done and cannot be changed, and really no one can apologise for it (since no one who commited those actions is alive) and that no one should. However, we can learn and should learn to stop these things happening again.

Those were the days. :)

There is no logical reason for any of us to be ashamed of things our countries did in the distant past. We can't change the past, we weren't there and certainly weren't personally responsable in any way shape or form.

But we need to learn from the past and try to prevent attrocities today. And sadly, IMHO, the worst ongoing attocities performed by individuals (non-Governmental actions) come from the Middle East. It disgusts me that these cultures consider random acts of violence and terror to be acceptable.

I for one am extremely proud of the british empire, i also think more british people should be ( i believe they would if it wasnt so "politically incorrect"). We civilised large part of africa, spread the language that is the best known in the world today, english law is the basis of law in many countries across the world, our scientist created the industrial revolution. The british empire made the world a far better place and any of the things we did wrong are far outweighed by the things we did right.

Also in the article where it refers to the british leaving india and palastine so abruptly he forgets to mention that the natives wanted us out as quickly as possible.

A good quote ive heard that came from a japanese person goes along the lines that 90% of the things that we have today were either invented or the basis of them cam from great britain

In my opinion the world would be a far better place if the british empire was still as powerful.

Such as..?

... the Concentration Camp. ;)
[starts to sing]
theressssssss
tv
penicillin
the computer
and
the umbrella

the steam engine
rubber bands
radar
and steel production

oh! and dont forget the internal combustion engineeeeee!

CHA!

(this is all i could find in my limited attention span.)

Loads of other contested stuff like air flight the telephone and the internet.


Could stop at the steam engine really, becuase that strarted the industrial revolution, and so britian basically made the modern world, in a consumerist sense.

Not to mention most of modern philosopy is british.
Hume, Mill, Locke, Russsel, Just to name 4 of the best.

The British Empire colonized America.

Nuff said.

:D

The British Empire colonized America.

Nuff said.

:D
Yes. They have every reason to be ashamed of that. And the French as well. For aiding the peasants when they revolted cause they didn't wanted to pay their taxes.

[starts to sing]
theressssssss
tv
penicillin
the computer
and
the umbrella

the steam engine
rubber bands
radar
and steel production

oh! and dont forget the internal combustion engineeeeee!

CHA!

(this is all i could find in my limited attention span.)

Loads of other contested stuff like air flight the telephone and the internet.


Could stop at the steam engine really, becuase that strarted the industrial revolution, and so britian basically made the modern world, in a consumerist sense.

Not to mention most of modern philosopy is british.
Hume, Mill, Locke, Russsel, Just to name 4 of the best.

ok so that means millions of innocent people should die so you can have rubber bands tv and umbrellas?

ok so that means millions of innocent people should die so you can have rubber bands tv and umbrellas?

Rubber bands ARE important!!!

ok so that means millions of innocent people should die so you can have rubber bands tv and umbrellas?

The steam engine
yes
pencillin
yes
the computer
yes

the first two have allready proved to vaslty advance human kind.

and the programmable computer has allmost infinite possiblities.

I was just trying to illustrate the point with a bit of humor.

ok so that means millions of innocent people should die so you can have rubber bands tv and umbrellas?
Yeah right. Like you would want to live a live without umbrellas.

Oi in all seriousness.

since when did britian kill millions of people direcelty or indireclty. Don't rember reading about that any where.

-</snip>-

I know all that, I think you missed the point of the post.
Clue Not everything immediately seen

can you conclusively prove that the individuals who invented these items wouldnt have thought of these ideas or other people later thinking them up without the slaughter of millions of innocent people?

can you conclusively prove that the individuals who invented these items wouldnt have thought of these ideas or other people later thinking them up without the slaughter of millions of innocent people?
yes.

for eveyone knows the only way a good inventor can work is by drinking babies blood, and the british army was happy to supply.

no really what?

Yeah if someone dosent think it up first, then of course some one else is doing to get it eventually.


no really what?

eveyone knows the only way a good inventor can work is by drinking babies blood
agreed

agreed
i did not understand your last point, where you being serious?

can you conclusively prove that the individuals who invented these items wouldnt have thought of these ideas or other people later thinking them up without the slaughter of millions of innocent people?

How many lives do you think t british empire has saved? thanks to things like:
penecilin
defeating germany in 2 world wars
industrialising much of the world

i did not understand your last point, where you being serious?
it is agreed that inventors cant work without drinking babies blood.....

How many lives do you think t british empire has saved? thanks to things like:
penecilin

Didn't an individual discover that, not the whole empire?

defeating germany in 2 world wars

Is this including the death tolls?

Also one could make the arguement that Britain helped lay the foundations for the second world war.

industrialising much of the world

:confused:

We came, We saw, We conquered, We raped. We didn't do much industrialising.

An individual did discover peneciline but the only way he could have is thatnks to the eduacation and resources that living in the empire gave him, i very much doubt that someone linving in a mud hut would have been able.
What was the alternatine to the treaty of versaille (which many bitish people thought was quite harsh) however we had just come out of a war like no other before it so you can understand why it was created. In world war 2 britain single handedly won the battle of britain. Ok on our own we could never have invaded europe but we did prevent hitlers expansion west and played a huge part in his destruction. As far as industrialising goes we started the industrial revolution (i think that says it all as it was probably the most influencial revoluyion ever). Also we may have raped and muredered (by no means widespread but im sure it happened on occaision) but we also spread english law, english language and the roots for some of the most powerful nations today.

Oi in all seriousness.

since when did britian kill millions of people direcelty or indireclty. Don't rember reading about that any where.
Thats just anti-British propaganda.

An individual did discover peneciline but the only way he could have is thatnks to the eduacation and resources that living in the empire gave him, i very much doubt that someone linving in a mud hut would have been able.

There are other alternatives amoung those two extremes

What was the alternatine to the treaty of versaille (which many bitish people thought was quite harsh) however we had just come out of a war like no other before it so you can understand why it was created.

I can certainly understand the mentality that WWI created and how the Treaty of Versailles was created. That doesn't stop the ToV from laying the foundations of WWII though.

As far as industrialising goes we started the industrial revolution (i think that says it all as it was probably the most influencial revoluyion ever).

True, thought Britain didn't then go and industtrialise the world though. Nations with a certain level of technical sophistication followed suit. But Britain largely saw the Empire as a cheap source of raw materials and wasn't particuarly keen on allowing other nations to industrialise (since they would compete unfavourably with British goods)

Also we may have raped and muredered (by no means widespread but im sure it happened on occaision)

By rape I meant exploit the natural resources of... rather then sexually abuse

but we also spread english law, english language and the roots for some of the most powerful nations today.

Wether powerful nations are a good thing though is another matter for debate.