First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
England the Aggressor
Posted 6/19/09
... I didn't read all of it because it's too long. But I'm British, and I am not at all racist. I find it really affensive. People shouldn't be grouped. Everyone is individuals, and they are all raised up differently. If they're racist, that means their parents fucked them up. Some people strongly disagree with what has happend. But yet they still get grouped.

Like I said earlier, I didn't read all of it. It's 9:33pm, almost my bed time. XD
5342 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / Upstate NY
Offline
Posted 6/22/09
That was great, I actually really enjoyed reading that.
I'm not going to give an opinion here because a) I don't know enough about the subject and b) I'm just not a very opinionated person... I enjoy hearing other's opinions though, and that was really interesting XD
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 6/22/09

joker_dude wrote:

... I didn't read all of it because it's too long. But I'm British, and I am not at all racist. I find it really affensive. People shouldn't be grouped. Everyone is individuals, and they are all raised up differently. If they're racist, that means their parents fucked them up. Some people strongly disagree with what has happend. But yet they still get grouped.

Like I said earlier, I didn't read all of it. It's 9:33pm, almost my bed time. XD


Well like I said, I have no problem with British people. I just don't like the United Kingdom being a corrupt, war mongering, arrogant entity and then blaming Israel and America for all the problems that the UK caused. I also hate the UK's media because it's flatly nationalistic. The people are just like everyone else.
1269 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 6/22/09
Whether you call them white people, Anglos, or westerners; these people of the past or present did some pretty heinous things, and for some reason or another these people don't undergo retribution. It's like they get away with it; i mean the Japanese learned there lesson doing the exact same things the westerns were doing via atomic bombs
2179 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / NW England
Offline
Posted 1/27/10 , edited 1/27/10
Well i'll congratulate you on a superbly written post, with some very valid points too. However it could really do without the strong, anti-British undertones to be honest.

Now before anyone thinks otherwise, i'm not going to blindly defend this country. I despise what it's become more than what we've done in the past frankly, but there are quite a few exagerated points in that mate.

For starters, the comment about the monarchy. Please stop thinking that the Queen or any of the Royals have any say in the running or policies of this country anymore, because they simply don't. Their duties are either ceremonial, or diplomatic now and have been for quite a few decades. The thing about how they 'Dress up as nazis', that was Prince Harry, in his younger days, being an idiot. We've all been teenagers yes? Admittedly not many dress as a nazi, but it was a stupid mistake. The way you wrote it makes it sound like they walk round all day sporting small tashes.

Now, in regards to our colonial and imperial days. Yes, we did many, many bad things. Horrible even. Yes our empire was carved out ruthlessly, and yes we held onto it ruthlessly. But what everyone seems to overlook these days, is that at that time in history everyone had an empire, not just us. The difference is, we were (forgive the wording) the best at it. Now i'm not going to say it's right, any of it. But at the time, it was the done thing, and that's a very different question. Social standards, outlooks and policies change, so what is abhorrent to us now, was just normal then. Quite often people mention things about England's imperial days as though i'm supposed to apologise for it personally, what the hell good would that do?

Was it me who bought slaves off african slavers? No.
Was it me who shot a bunch of rebelling Africans? No.
Was it me who overtaxed the colonies in America, driving them to rebel? No.
Was it me who.... No I think you get the point.

So I agree with most of what you said, by today's standards, it's very, very wrong. But at the time, we were envied. I don't want you to misunderstand me here and think that i'm proud of it, because that's a very complex question. I'm disgusted by the things that went on, yet (because of how all western nations worked at the time) proud that we were the best at it. I hope you can see where i'm coming from with that.

However, all that aside, what REALLY annoyed me out of that post mate, was your comment about the Irish 'Fighting to reclaim their land'. You do know that it's a war that will never end right? Most people in Northern Ireland want to stay in the United Kingdom. Some don't, and those are the ones who bloody blow people up. I love how if it's muslim extremists blowing things up in America it's automatically evil (And it is), but if it's the proud, Irish freedom fighters blowing up those poncy tea drinking Brits, it's fine! Hell, give them a gold star, those poor, down-trodden sods.

Makes me sick. You know I had been in the Arndale centre an hour before it was bombed in '96? How's about I go to someone in the US who had been in one of the towers before it was disgustingly attacked, and say to him "Those terrorists eh? Fighting the good fight!". Yes I know that was way, WAY worse, but you see what i'm getting at? That really pisses me off.

Sure, had England not won the wars centuries ago and taken control of the British isles none of this would be happening! Can't deny that! But what a lot of people don't seem to fucking realise, is that if we hadn't, then the Scots would. Or the Welsh. Or the Irish. Hell, even then Norwegians were having a go. So no matter who had won, the same shit would be happening today, just the fences would be different. Yet for some unexplained and obscure fucking reason, nobody seems able or willing to bloody admit that. It HAS to be the evil English again. We should change our national anthem to the bloody Vader music off Star Wars at this rate.

Now I know that a lot of people in the UK dislike America. I know a lot of people in Europe as a whole dislike it. Did you ever stop to realise that a lot of people in America dislike people from the UK and Europe? Did you? Ever think that those people are the inevitable ignorant fools you will find in every square inch of populated earth on this planet?

I'm sorry mate but that really did come across as 'Woe is me, and my poor, hated countrymen'. Without a doubt, even I know some people here who think that all Americans are fat, redneck, racist, war mongering bastards who think they're better than everyone else. What do I think about that? I think those people are stupid. I will also bet a fair amount of money that you yourself and other North Americans here think or know people who think that all English people wear monocles, drink tea, eat crumpets and shout "What what old chap!" several hundred times a day. It's called a stereotype, and all human societies have them in some form.

No doubt, I think the wars we're involved in atm are dead wrong. No doubt we're just as guilty as you are, and you will never find me saying otherwise. The problem arises when you realise that our much lauded 'democracy' in the west is about as democratic as, well, something that's not democratic. The only say we have as a populace is every few years when we vote someone else in. Once they're in, they've got carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want. Just look at Gordon Brown now, he's always got that smug grin on his face, almost like he's saying "I'm in power and there's nothing you can do about it! Har har!".

And no, we didn't vote for him, before anyone brings up the 'It's your own fault' argument.

I could keep going but i'll spare you. All I ask is that in future you try and realise that we're not all uneducated, football loving, US-hating swine, just as I know you're not all biased, scarily patriotic, flag waving, world dominating, ignorant, burger eating lowlifes. Bad things are going to happen in this country in the next few decades, the place has turned into a ticking time bomb of racial tension and civil unrest. As is always the way, governments are like pendulums, they go all the way to the right (Read: Our Imperial days), then they go all the way to the left (Read: Now). Both destroy the balance and harm people, just in different ways.

Time for me to emmigrate, and i'll watch the place implode on the news. I'd thank you to stop thinking that we're jealous of you though, whilst we may have a bloody past that dwarfs a lot of other countries, civil problems that are close to breaking us, and an extremely low position in the eyes of the world, you're hardly saints either. Nobody is. And remember that the excuse "Oh well they were worse!", is not a valid excuse to carry on doing bad things.

EDIT: Just to let you know, that 'British' video of the stupid American thing you linked, that's an Australian accent, not British.

EDIT 2: "The Boston Tea Party has since been romanticized in American history, but this doesn’t reflect the true nation of the convention. The Tea Party was not supported by the majority of the American settlers. The “Sons of Liberty,” and the “Daughters of Liberty,” were individual extremist organizations that lacked popular support. Yet, England decided to punish everybody. To put this in perspective, this would be like bombing America now because something the KKK did."
- So what, like invading Iraq and Afghanistan because of something a small group of radical muslims did? Your over-exagerated, sensationalist rubbish is boring.
Posted 1/27/10
If they have a problem with us, bring it on. I think its funny that Alot of countries have problems with us, but the only country that had the balls to attack us wasnt even a country, but Al Qaeda.
Posted 1/27/10
England was never good in wars but they can light the fire of conflicts really good.
Anyway, since they are Europeans, thus aggressive people, in the terms of screwing up the "third world" countries, it's prety natural.
I'd rather talk about the class issues. England appears to be the only place in the world with such annoying ugly snobs. Everything works for the upper-middle class in this country.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/27/10

SeraphAlford wrote:

Every major world power has something to be ashamed of somewhere in its history. Germany, a wonderfully advanced civilization, systematically murdered millions of people. Japan, another advanced society, assisted them in their campaign. Russia fought against the Nazi Regime, but the communists were hardly humanitarians themselves. America is one of the easiest targets to attack simply because it seems to sit in the limelight more than any other nation. Most of our land was stolen from the Native Americans. We essentially made fraudulent claims to steal Florida. With some provocation we robbed Mexico of Texas. We brought slavery to its highest peak, and even legalized partial birth abortion.

America also went through a period of Imperialism, as did most major powers today. However, in the history of mankind no nation has taken it as far as England. Even when other world powers were modernizing their politics England hung to its racist warmongering, nationalism, and imperialism. Well into the twentieth century it was literally invading and colonizing other nations against the will of its denizens. By 1922 the British Empire covered a full quarter of the Earth’s land surface, and had forced an entire quarter of the human population to subject itself to English apartheid mostly against their will.

Much of Africa was actually under the control of the United Kingdom in the mid-to-late-1900 hundreds. Some of it remains in this condition today. Ghana, what used to be the Gold Cost, was the first former British colony to attain its independence from the United Kingdom’s forced colonization. Almost immediately after conquering the Ashanti people in the Gold cost the British placed their home under the rule of the queen and exiled their chief. Sir Frederick Hodgson, the royally placed governor, then proceeded to demand the Ashanti let him defile a sacred relic of their religion. It was a golden stool said to house the souls of the righteous dead, and he wanted to sit on it. Naturally they protested, but being a representative of the Queen and England-the greatest nation ever-he refused to listen.

An Ashanti woman, the mother of their exiled chief, immediately led a rebellion. She rallied twelve thousand persecuted Africans and forced the British regiments out of her homeland. Enraged that these people would actually expect to live their lives as free human beings, the British then sent a massive armada under the leadership of Major James Willcocks to butcher their women, children, and warriors alike; raze their villages, and generally massacre anybody who wasn’t white.

Now, England’s a modern nation, advanced, and liberal nation! It no longer clings to notions that it holds a privileged position over western nations because of its history. Hell, its denizens aren’t even diluted into believing that their minute military can compete with America’s. They certainly don’t believe that their troops are literally better than the troops of every other nation and that the American military is a poorly trained squabble in comparison. This crap ended well before WWII!

Surely this persecution was all at least two or three hundred years ago, right? Wrong, Ghana did not find liberation from English apartheid until 1957. Again, this is the –first- to be liberated. England is still occupying foreign territory in Africa to this day. That’s not even to get me started on the Irish ‘terrorists,’ who continue fighting to reclaim Northern Ireland and united their people.

It’s not only Africa. Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are all common wealth states today because of the British presence in their nation at some point earlier in their history. This presence was far from friendly, despite what the British public schools seem to teach. The Flagstaff War began in New Zealand when the United Kingdom hoisted its flag in the town of Kororareka. Some of the locals, who refused to submit, felled the flag. It was erected, felled, erected, felled, erected, felled, erected and reinforced with iron and then guarded by armed soldiers with the orders to kill any of those dam natives who dared come near the great British flag. After all, the natives had lived there for thousands of years…but they didn’t have a flag so they were a ‘savage tribe.’

This wasn’t some stray military leader acting of his personal accord; though it was military enforced tyranny otherwise known as fascism. The House of Commons itself came together and decided to slaughter the locals. After all, they had absolutely no right to oppose foreign occupiers trying to take over their land.

Well, the locals were luckily warned by traveling missionaries and took pre-emptive measures. They took out the garrison and sliced down the flag. England responded by violently slaughtering the natives during ten months of armed conflict, but finally learned its lesson about letting national ego go to your head. They didn’t erect the flag. This being said the lesson was not applied to England’s other conquered nations.

England also loves to condemn Israel, although this isn’t much of a surprise. English anti-Semitism is part of what caused the early-modern Zionist movement-which aside from finding a homeland for the Jews also advocates creating a perfect society free from the flaws of racism that marred Europe and England in the 20th century. What the English media neglects to mention is that the entire conflict began not because the Arabs were racist war mongering maniacs or every single Jew in the Middle East is a Zionist agent. No, it began because the English had control of Palestine and screwed it right the hell up for economic purposes.

You see, England volunteered (oh so selflessly,) to enforce an apartheid like program on the locals of Palestine after the Ottoman Empire diminished. They put white people in charge, because you know putting white people in charge of those oddly hued foreign folk worked so well every other time, and actually quite successful governed the area in a way that benefited the motherland. During WWII, England did fight for the allies (mostly because Germany was seeking to invade England,) but they also went a step further and-like Russia-opened their arms to embrace the Jewish refugees.

What England didn’t realize is that the Jews were fucking refugees. They couldn’t afford to cross large bodies of water and instead of rushing to the motherland ran towards England’s colonies in Africa and the Middle East-namely, Palestine. The British then put absurd regulations on Jewish immigrants into their territory. Not immigrants in general, Jewish immigrants. Well, the Jews had already arrived and had nothing to go back to.

Now, understand that the Arabs AND Muslims, yes those horrible Muslims- welcomed- the Jews. In fact, they got along famously. They built societies together, cleared out swamps, and shared in culture. The Arabs and Muslims treated the Jews far better than the Europeans, English, and Christians. The only other place Jews were welcomed so fervently is America-where they became major contributors to American culture. (Seriously, look up “Jewish-American Author/Literature.”)

But that changed, and there’s a reason. These Jews had nothing to turn back to. So, when England closed their borders to the Jews, they immigrated illegally. Anybody who’s lived in British Columbia, Texas, or some parts of Germany where illegal immigration from India is a major issue knows exactly what happens when you have illegal immigration on large scale. Now triple that and understand that these particular aliens were desperate.

The Arabs began to riot as their jobs were stolen and their land bought by immigrants not subjected to British tax. Arab mobs were lynching Jews and Jewish self defense groups formed and evolved into organized crime and terrorist syndicates such as the “Stern Gang,” which began murdering Arabs. Unlike the Arab mobs, these syndicates weren’t random acts of hazed violence from small numbers of individuals. These were large numbers of Jews working together and pre-meditating murder. The Arabs retaliated as best they could, and the English rulers responded not by trying to diffuse the situation but by discriminating against the Jews. This only caused more chaos as Jews began mobbing British police stations.

Well, Palestine was no longer a financial benefit to the motherland. So, the United Kingdom did what it has always done whenever their colonies aren’t benefiting the motherland, and bailed out. They abandoned the locals to chaos. The United Nations took over and created a two state plan which the Arab League acknowledged as logical and fair but refused to accept.

The Arab League launched a genocidal campaign against the Jews. Even though the Arab League has since admitted its fault in this war, they can also boast that they had the United Kingdom’s silent support. The UK seized English citizens who happened to be Jews and were trying to travel so that they couldn’t join the Jews in Israel. They gave weapons to Arab terrorists but refused to support the Israelites by trading with them.

Well, that conflict-which England probably could’ve prevented-led to the Six Day War which has caused modern conflicts like the recent Gaza massacre.

That’s not all, folks. We cannot forget that the problems in Sudan were also caused by the United Kingdom and prolonged by the United Kingdom. The UK condemns America, and while claiming to be its ally, also released propaganda against the Unites States. They mock America for the War in Iraq, but England took place in that war as well. Not only did they fight in the war, they actually got pissed when Canada refused to do the same. (One reason I like Canada is because that nation clings to its independence. While New Zealand is the UK’s puppet and Australia follows America like a blind duckling Canada said: screw you England, we don’t want a war! This naturally pissed off the ego-maniac they call a queen, who honestly didn’t seem to realize that Canada was a completely independent, sovereign, nation that’s frankly five times the nation the United Kingdom ever was.)

They criticized America for its misinformed intelligence that there were WMDS in Iraq, but the English government came to the same conclusion. The difference is that English media works on an editor opinion basis, while America employ the objectivity approach. The result of the former is that you have many contradicting bits of information from various sources and it’s up to the read to decipher which one is accurate news. Typically, people simply accept whatever they want to hear. The American system of objectivity provides more accurate facts, in general, but it also limits adversity diversity by giving media more uniformity. So, the British can cite its media to claim a position opposite of what it truly held because no matter what the issue different articles are always going to contradict.

Speaking of America, the American founders wanted to abolish slavery. They did not, and with good reason. They knew that many of the colonists being subjected to taxation without representation, and imprisonment without fair trial; forced to house British troops who refused to protect them, and denied the right to their democratic town traditions-not to mention many other trespasses on basic human liberties -were never the less hesitant about rebelling against England.

They’d seen what England does to its enemies in the earlier wars with France in Canada. They were also slave owners. In order for the rebellion to succeed, however, the Americans needed a united front. So they compromised-and luckily it worked. What resulted, however, was the 2/5ths compromise and similar laws supporting slavery which made it dam near impossible to outlaw slavery through peaceful measures.

In the end it became necessary for America to remove slavery by force, and thus the American Civil War began because England refused to acknowledge the rights of its own citizens just because they didn’t live on the motherland. Remember, most of the colonists in America considered themselves English citizens.

The Boston Tea Party has since been romanticized in American history, but this doesn’t reflect the true nation of the convention. The Tea Party was not supported by the majority of the American settlers. The “Sons of Liberty,” and the “Daughters of Liberty,” were individual extremist organizations that lacked popular support. Yet, England decided to punish everybody. To put this in perspective, this would be like bombing America now because something the KKK did.

Anyway, the Civil War was the bloodiest war in American history claiming more lives than the Revolutionary War, WWI, The Philippine War, Vietnam, Operation Just Cause, Desert Storm, and the War in Iraq combined. This could’ve been avoided if the English simply let the colonists govern their own settlements and abolish slavery.

England did abolish slavery before America, but not because it was progressive. No, it abolished it because of a vastly successful slave rebellion which made them fear a similar operation on larger scale in the heart of the motherland.


In the 21st century the United Kingdomis part of the supra-national body with the best human rights protection system in the world. You may wish to rant about the cruel deeds of the United Kingdom, and I will acknowledge that viewed from our current perspective they are unacceptable deeds, but most of what you've said took place quite a while back.


The European Dream highlights a series of ways that Europe is superior to America. You can see this posted in the “America is not Number One,” thread here on crunchy roll. The interesting thing about the statistics it cites is that it doesn’t say, “England,” or “Germany,” or any one nation is superior to America in this fashion. No, it says “The European Union.” For example, “The European Union produces more scientific papers than America…”

I find it interesting that America is being compared to a large conglomerate of nations. Can England not stack by itself? Is it so desperate that flaunt its superiority to America that it has to take collective responsibility for the accomplishments of an entire union? Are these states not each independent, sovereign nation’s that simply happen to be united under similar collective interests?


Umm, a second please. Isn't America a federal state by any chance? I don't see a problem when it comes to comparing a large conglomerate of states that relinquished their sovereignty altogether to a large conglomerate of states that relinquished their sovereignty in part. Not to mention that the Treaty of Lisbon was another victory for federalists, so you never know, in half a century the EU might become a federal state. In fact, its judicial taxonomy is akin to that of a federal state already.
Posted 1/28/10
England has been very aggressive over the ages. Of course not all the English are pompous megalomaniacs just out there to dominate the world. Different times had different people and it was fashionable centuries in the past to subjugate other countries for glory.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 1/28/10

DerfelCadarn
In the 21st century the United Kingdom is part of the supra-national body with the best human rights protection system in the world. You may wish to rant about the cruel deeds of the United Kingdom, and I will acknowledge that viewed from our current perspective they are unacceptable deeds, but most of what you've said took place quite a while back.


Judging a nation only by its actions in the last ten years is silly. So regardless of what the United Kingdom is now in the twenty first century, what it was throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries remains significant. A lot of what I said happened a long time ago. A lot of what I said happened virtually yesterday. In terms of nations, governments, sociology, and history a couple hundred years is not very long.

I once read in an issue of cosmos that a sneeze is one-eighth of an orgasm. I laughed out loud, literally. How in the world do you measure out one-eighth of an orgasm? Now I am not laughing, but have a similar question. How do you measure the best human rights protection?

Anyway, I do not believe what you are arguing is true. However, when I wrote the post you are quoting I was not being academically honest. I was retaliating to an anti-American thread that had become very popular. It was political activism. I was immature and irritated. The United Kingdom is a great nation and a good ally.



Umm, a second please. Isn't America a federal state by any chance? I don't see a problem when it comes to comparing a large conglomerate of states that relinquished their sovereignty altogether to a large conglomerate of states that relinquished their sovereignty in part. Not to mention that the Treaty of Lisbon was another victory for federalists, so you never know, in half a century the EU might become a federal state. In fact, its judicial taxonomy is akin to that of a federal state already.


First off, you are using the term state in two separate contexts. The states in the USA are essentially provinces. They battled for their status and rights as states during the American Civil War, but the federal government defeated the confederates and superseded that. The “states,” are not states in the same sense as a sovereign nation.

Secondly, I think you –do- see the error. It would be like arguing that Burger King is better than McDonald’s because the entire Burger King company makes more money than one individual McDonald’s location. Or that Mexico has a larger GDP than the USA because it generates more goods and services than the "state" of Oklahoma.

Either way, the USA is a Eurocentric society so the point is essentially meaningless. We should be cooperating, and really we do. This is especially true of the United Kingdom.
66207 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
55 / M / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 8/24/10
----I have to defend England and it conquest for territory it been done for thousand of years is it wrong or right conquest for land and whats on them has always been. Eventuality a group or country will extend it self to far and lose what it has claimed. You could go all way back in time and find these behavior. One reason the English language of the mutts is all around the world to this day. There north American, English, and Australian dictionary. Are language mutates like a virus Germanic in nature but Roman had a influence and all the lands and people that have had trade or even wars with Great Britain.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now it a different from of take over through immigration and intimidation Islam being the biggest offender. To call one country out, is silly the world is guilty of this it called looking out for one on ass. Why do you think the Romans went so far north it was not for the environment overcast derry weather. It was for tin to make stronger weapons. I lived there I would want to leave it too. Hell the Normans Nailed as well the Viking had there go at it. But smart enough not to stay as far as I know.
Posted 8/29/10
Shit happens and violence always exist. Every country is powerful because they've wiped people out.

Think of how many people were killed in Vietnam and Korea because they wanted to be "free" from foreign rule.

www.jadednews.com
32428 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Cardiff
Offline
Posted 12/7/11
Being from England i find this rather interesting. But can't most MEDCs be considered in pretty much the same way as stated in the first post. Many European countries and the USA charge African massive interests on their debt, and all modern wars we have entered we have done so with America, and they were all legal according to NATO. Also all the common wealth states are legal and whilst they do have many people against them many natives also support them, although they're probably a minority.

So whilst England may be pretty much wrong as a country i think most developed countries are, so it's actually the entire system that has to change, and it's nothing really to do with england as an independent nation.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.