British Imperialism

[Yank]

That's absolute bollocks.

I agree and I'm going to get to this in a second. I like how he condescendingly says this is what modern historians do, like he's somehow above them in terms of knowledge and how they apply it.

 

[Yank]

This is what many modern historians and folk forget when debating topics such as imperialism and enpires.

Back then it was a dog eat dog world - we were invaded and we also did invasions.

If it wasnt us it would have been someone else and alot of us wouldnt have the economy/lifestyle we do now had the country never acquired its wealth over the course of its history.

You cant compare actions of nations from centuries ago to modern day standards.

What were human rights back then?
What were womens rights?
What did people think about people of other races?
What were animal rights?
What were workers rights?
What were civil rights?
Our King chopped the heads of his multiple wives off - if Prince William did that today he would be banged up in strangeways for life.

History teaches us that human existence was a dog eat dog world for most of its time - thankfully we are now alot more civilised in most parts.

Some of this is true, however, some of it is taking it to an extreme. Simply because the powers that be decided something was acceptable does not mean people weren't capable of acting differently. Plenty of people usually felt their own countries acted wrongly, but simply weren't powerful enough to change things.

For instance, not English, but Thomas Jefferson is a great example of this. Plenty of modern historians give him a pass on so many of his opinions and actions, because well, he was raised in the tidewater south where Slavey was apart of the culture. He believed in slavery, believed black people were almost a different subhuman species and whites were doing a lot for them by keeping them as slaves. He thought they were incapable of participating in society, let alone self rule. He also wrote his own version of the bible. The guy was a juge narcissist.

Alexander Hamilton, grew up at the same time, on Nevis. In a culture just as reliant upon slavery and was an abolitionist. Never owned a slave. Americans embraced slavery, while others at the same exact time knew it was abhorrent.

Some actions can be viewed as that's what they did in the time, others have been widely reviled and touch a base human instinct that we all know are wrong if you're a decent human being.

Some of imperialism can fall into that category where you can judge it. It's not just, well they all wanted to do it so you can't judge it. The history you're reading is largely influenced by those that were imperialists. Some of it, I agree can be understood. Some of it, was just bad people doing bad things.

As for the question at hand, I don't spend much time thinking what if this thing that didn't shape the world didn't happen because no one can say whether it'd be better or worse. The answer varies from nation to nation.

 

[ForeverBlue92]

That's absolute bollocks.

Not really mate- had say India had the means to have conquered a resource laden Britain in those days do you really believe they wouldn't have done so?

Of course you can look at the positives and negatives of empires

(Positives being they introduced technology and infrastructure to the colonised nations in particular the Roman and British Empires) whilst acknowledging the obvious negatives of it being the take over of another nation and its populace in the pursuit for its resources and the awful things that come with that.

However you are looking at things purely from a civilised modern perspective - back then it was literally the wild west.

 

[ForeverBlue92]

Some of this is true, however, some of it is taking it to an extreme. Simply because the powers that be decided something was acceptable does not mean people weren't capable of acting differently. Plenty of people usually felt their own countries acted wrongly, but simply weren't powerful enough to change things.

For instance, not English, but Thomas Jefferson is a great example of this. Plenty of modern historians give him a pass on so many of his opinions and actions, because well, he was raised in the tidewater south where Slavey was apart of the culture. He believed in slavery, believed black people were almost a different subhuman species and whites were doing a lot for them by keeping them as slaves. He thought they were incapable of participating in society, let alone self rule. He also wrote his own version of the bible. The guy was a juge narcissist.

Alexander Hamilton, grew up at the same time, on Nevis. In a culture just as reliant upon slavery and was an abolitionist. Never owned a slave. Americans embraced slavery, while others at the same exact time knew it was abhorrent.

Some actions can be viewed as that's what they did in the time, others have been widely reviled and touch a base human instinct that we all know are wrong if you're a decent human being.

Some of imperialism can fall into that category where you can judge it. It's not just, well they all wanted to do it so you can't judge it. The history you're reading is largely influenced by those that were imperialists. Some of it, I agree can be understood. Some of it, was just bad people doing bad things.

As for the question at hand, I don't spend much time thinking what if this thing that didn't shape the world didn't happen because no one can say whether it'd be better or worse. The answer varies from nation to nation.

The thing is in 100 years time humans may look back at how we slaughter vulnerable animals for sport, how we cook dogs alive to increase the taste of their flesh etc and how livestock is treated across the world without a second glance so long as the food is tasty on the plate as being primitive and abhorrent (which they are right however it still goes on today doesnt it).

People will always judge based on their own societal norms and the era they grow up in.

Yes that doesn't excuse it however for me you cant fully judge the actions of a society from say 200 years ago and hold it to the norms of today - yes you can objectively look at it but for me alot of historians fail to do that.

 

[edge]

What you been upto today.

was a in work last night mate off today in my garden doing a bit in the afternoon.

 

[Boss_Blue]

Some of this is true, however, some of it is taking it to an extreme. Simply because the powers that be decided something was acceptable does not mean people weren't capable of acting differently. Plenty of people usually felt their own countries acted wrongly, but simply weren't powerful enough to change things.

For instance, not English, but Thomas Jefferson is a great example of this. Plenty of modern historians give him a pass on so many of his opinions and actions, because well, he was raised in the tidewater south where Slavey was apart of the culture. He believed in slavery, believed black people were almost a different subhuman species and whites were doing a lot for them by keeping them as slaves. He thought they were incapable of participating in society, let alone self rule. He also wrote his own version of the bible. The guy was a juge narcissist.

Alexander Hamilton, grew up at the same time, on Nevis. In a culture just as reliant upon slavery and was an abolitionist. Never owned a slave. Americans embraced slavery, while others at the same exact time knew it was abhorrent.

Some actions can be viewed as that's what they did in the time, others have been widely reviled and touch a base human instinct that we all know are wrong if you're a decent human being.

Some of imperialism can fall into that category where you can judge it. It's not just, well they all wanted to do it so you can't judge it. The history you're reading is largely influenced by those that were imperialists. Some of it, I agree can be understood. Some of it, was just bad people doing bad things.

As for the question at hand, I don't spend much time thinking what if this thing that didn't shape the world didn't happen because no one can say whether it'd be better or worse. The answer varies from nation to nation.

Hello mate, long time no speak. Are you keeping well?

 

[Billy Dean]

For instance, not English, but Thomas Jefferson is a great example of this. Plenty of modern historians give him a pass on so many of his opinions and actions, because well, he was raised in the tidewater south where Slavey was apart of the culture. He believed in slavery, believed black people were almost a different subhuman species and whites were doing a lot for them by keeping them as slaves. He thought they were incapable of participating in society, let alone self rule.

You can pretty much use that description for Winston Churchill too

 

[Kurt.]

Some of this is true, however, some of it is taking it to an extreme. Simply because the powers that be decided something was acceptable does not mean people weren't capable of acting differently. Plenty of people usually felt their own countries acted wrongly, but simply weren't powerful enough to change things.

For instance, not English, but Thomas Jefferson is a great example of this. Plenty of modern historians give him a pass on so many of his opinions and actions, because well, he was raised in the tidewater south where Slavey was apart of the culture. He believed in slavery, believed black people were almost a different subhuman species and whites were doing a lot for them by keeping them as slaves. He thought they were incapable of participating in society, let alone self rule. He also wrote his own version of the bible. The guy was a juge narcissist.

Alexander Hamilton, grew up at the same time, on Nevis. In a culture just as reliant upon slavery and was an abolitionist. Never owned a slave. Americans embraced slavery, while others at the same exact time knew it was abhorrent.

Some actions can be viewed as that's what they did in the time, others have been widely reviled and touch a base human instinct that we all know are wrong if you're a decent human being.

Some of imperialism can fall into that category where you can judge it. It's not just, well they all wanted to do it so you can't judge it. The history you're reading is largely influenced by those that were imperialists. Some of it, I agree can be understood. Some of it, was just bad people doing bad things.

As for the question at hand, I don't spend much time thinking what if this thing that didn't shape the world didn't happen because no one can say whether it'd be better or worse. The answer varies from nation to nation.

#Mamba out

 

[Methuselah]

You can pretty much use that description for Winston Churchill too

It never ceases to amaze me how some people are prepared to advertise to the world that they are clueless.

 

[Billy Dean]

It never ceases to amaze me how some people are prepared to advertise to the world that they are clueless.

I mean you can discount the slavery part of that but it's hard to argue that he wasn't a white supremacist.

 

[the sniderman]

Is that you started following me lol, I said what's up in a good way because you seem so nice and I got shut down lol. Fair enough though

buster make no mistake i will shut up down again unless u toe the line and be a good bozo.

 

[degsy]

I mean you can discount the slavery part of that but it's hard to argue that he wasn't a white supremacist.

Yeah but he was an English WS, not a German WS...if one is (almost) universally vilified as being 'bad' doesn't that mean that the other is 'not bad'
It's all about the perspective at the time.
Times change
So you're measuring 100 yrs ago apples with modern day oranges.

 

[Billy Dean]

Yeah but he was an English WS, not a German WS...if one is (almost) universally vilified as being 'bad' doesn't that mean that the other is 'not bad'
It's all about the perspective at the time.
Times change
So you're measuring 100 yrs ago apples with modern day oranges.

Not everyone was a massive racist 100 years ago

 

[Methuselah]

Not everyone was a massive racist 100 years ago

Yes, exactly. So how do you know Churchill was? Did you read it in the Daily Worker.

 

[Charro]

Most of Europe was ready to surrender to Hitler in the war.

We were the only ones to put up a fight and with the help of the U.S the soviets we put a stop to the invasion.

If it wasn’t for us the world could’ve looked a whole lot different.

The rest of our history is very questionable to say the least, but our role in WW2 and the people involved in it should be celebrated.