Poll: Proud to be British
- Thread starter Druss the Slayer
- Start date
yet, what america provides is what your country would have never had if the US never existed. If america was never a super power, then you would most likely be under a country with much less tolerant view, (IE pretty much the rest of the world excluding Canada, because Canada like the US is a true melting pot of cultures and its people are not ethnically or ideologically [religiously] nationalistic, which is the same with the US)enzilewulf said:
In america you have, more freedom (certainly more than the British, freedom of speech is not guaranteed there) better protection, The only thing that causes america to lagg behind in some respects is the lazy ness of the people, people let companies become more powerfull than they should, people see problems and complain about them, but don't tell their congressmen, so instead the dumb-ass loud minority screams, and gets heard. Then they don't vote seeing it would be usless.
America is built on rules and a constitution near perfect (not all laws mind you) Better than possibly every country out there. It was meant to be that way. Its possibly better than a system of governing will ever become. It does not have direct democracy, which leads to problems (ie those in power bullshitting their way to office and spreading bullshit to people so it can quickly get a vote on if it wants something like, i don't know, 12 nukes launched to some random place just too see the explosion, or you could just look at athens and see what happened there) and it does not go too far to government control of every thing (ie resources and buissness), or communism, where the people become lazy and no progress is made because there is no money to insentivize,
Erm, Hang on a sec...Srdjan said:
Just to let you know, Slavery was not a British invention, Almost EVERY "CIVILISED" country (or country with a long history)on the earth has had a slave system, the Ancient Greeks, the Romans, ancient China, all the way through to the United States. The earliest records of slavery can be traced to the Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1760 BC), and the Bible refers to it as an established institution.
Furthermore, Barbary Pirates had been at it since the 8th and 9th centuries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade and read this http://www.amazon.co.uk/White-Gold-Extraordinary-Africas-European/dp/0340794704. About the BRITISH stopping the arabian slave trade...
In regards to India. About 15% of the population were slaves. Slavery was abolished in both Hindu and Muslim India by the Indian Slavery Act V. of 1843, a British law in India...to STOP slavery. India already had a Caste system before Britain and France, and before them Portugal arrived there... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India#British_rule
Yes, the Indians didn't like the British coming in and messing with their centuries old system (honestly I believe Britain had no right to do so) but at least we tried to implement a form of equal opportunity (to the extent that equal opportunity was in the 18th century)
The First Europeans to start a "Slave Trade" was Portugal, in Lagos ... was the first slave market created in Portugal for the sale of imported African slaves ? the Mercado de Escravos, opened in 1444. . .
I'm not saying Britian wasn't guilty of slavery, but they were guilty of STOPPING it!
The trade of slaves in England was made illegal in 1102...and Britain abolished the slave trade in 1833...
Occupied france? I'm guessing you are referring to the hundred year's war, which stemmed from the fact that the Normans (part viking FRENCH people) had conquered England and still claimed land in France, the monarchy, and therefore leaders of the country at that time were of FRENCH descent... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_years_war... the English kings were from ANJOU and NORMANDY in FRANCE... NOT ENGLAND and by extention BRITAIN, even though there wasn't yet a BRITAIN...
Germany, yes we took their colonies off them, because they invaded France and declared war on Britain and her allies (France and Russia)... in WW1 and at the start of WW2 they didn't have an empire, as you said, we took it off them for being naughty. And yes, we didn't think the unification of a power hungry, european power would be a good thing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_unification
Germany was desperate for an Empire...like those of France, Britain, Austria-Hungary and Russia... there was no land left, so it was going to have to attack an existing empire, I'm pretty sure all the other countries I just listed were opposed to it on a status quo basis, as in they are the one's in power and don't want to lose it.
Don't know about Italian reunification to be honest, so you may be right.
Not sure what you mean about the betrayal of Russia, Turkey or Serbia...
Well, if he's (or she's) a parisian (from Paris) they have superior attitudes and a dislike of the US. However, if he (or she) is from out side of France, and doesnt carry the superior attitude, generally the population will be kind. Yes, he may meet dickish people, like i did in Britain, But not ont he amount of Dickish people that i had met (a good 80+% of the people i met).scumofsociety said:
And when the LARGE majority of people you meet have a dickish attitude, its very hard to not judge the rest of the country by it. I met something like 300 people minimum and of that, 80% were dicks. So if you met 300 Americans, and 80% where dicks, would you not judge that entire country by that? i somehow think so.
I'm fairly proud of the nhs, but everything else seems to be generally crap
oh well, can't complain really
and i didn't live through the previous dark reighn of the tories, but i suspect the country's going downhill pretty soon
oh well, can't complain really
really? i think a lot of the scottish accents are pretty coolrevolutionaification said:
and i didn't live through the previous dark reighn of the tories, but i suspect the country's going downhill pretty soon
80%? You know, I think you are either overinflating that figure or you are doing something to piss people off. You're really telling me that 240 people started going on about all americans being fat gun nuts and telling you that their grandfather civilised your people?emeraldrafael said:
You are so very wrong. This is from Wikipedia, but I'm going to back it up in a second:BlackStar42 said:
"Once the war with the United States began, the Confederacy pinned its hopes for survival on military intervention by Britain and France. The United States realized this as well and made it clear that diplomatic recognition of the Confederacy meant war with the United States ? and the cutting off of food shipments into Britain. The Confederates who had believed that "cotton is king" ? that is, Britain had to support the Confederacy to obtain cotton ? proved mistaken. The British had ample stocks to last over a year and were not about to go to war with the U.S. to try to get more cotton.[67][68]
The Confederate government sent repeated delegations to Europe; historians give them low marks for their poor diplomacy.[69] James M. Mason went to London and John Slidell traveled to Paris, but neither were officially received. Each did succeed in holding unofficial private meetings with high British and French officials but neither secured official recognition for the Confederacy. Britain and the United States came dangerously close to war during the Trent Affair (when the U.S. Navy seized two Confederate agents traveling on a British ship in late 1861), and it seemed possible that the Confederacy would see its much desired recognition. When Lincoln released the two, however, tensions cooled, and in the end the episode did not aid the Confederate cause.
Throughout the early years of the war, British foreign secretary Lord Russell, Napoleon III of France, and, to a lesser extent, British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, showed interest in the idea of recognition of the Confederacy, or at least of offering a mediation. Recognition meant certain war with the United States, and war would have meant loss of American grain, loss of exports to the United States, loss of huge investments in American securities, invasion of Canada, much higher taxes, many lives lost and a threat to British trade. Intervention was considered by the British government following the Second Battle of Bull Run, but the Union victory at the Battle of Antietam and Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, combined with internal opposition, caused Britain to back away; the British government did allow blockade runners to be built in Britain and operated by British seamen."
Further more, if you need more proof, I'll give you more examples of Britain's intervention with the Confederate states. I wrote a paper on Antietam and learned all about this:
Here's from the History Channel on a documentary about the battle of Antietam's effects on the United States:
(go to about 4:30 into that video)
(pick up here at 4 mins and listen for about 30 seconds
You can also Read about the CSS Alabama, a British war vessel built in Britian, for the Confederates, and never docked in Confederate ports so was supplied by British owned territories and ports:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-us-cs/csa-sh/csash-ag/alabama.htm
Or you can google the numerous british attempts to sink and/or capture the Union merchant ships, so they could put that money back into the Confederacy.
So dont tell me that Britain didnt help the confederacy, because this is my minor field of study in college (US history 1812 to 1877).
Finally, You started major colonialization in the Northern and Eastern parts of the United States, so Britain did start that. While France had Colonies in the US, they were peaceful trading posts. Thats why if you look at French Canada, you'll see a lot of Native Canadian Americans mixed with French blood in its populous. Britain for all intensive purposes started the extermination of the Native Americans, instead of trying to live in a peaceful coexistence like the French had, and those ideals continued through the British founded colonies. Bout the only time the British wanted to help the Natives was to curb US expansion on the continent and even then they only gave meager munitions and pulled support when things got tough in their own country, leaving the Native people to fall under the colonies.
Yeah. I know america isnt exactly thought of highly in the nations. and multiple people here have even stated thats how British people talk. Taking Coarse friendly jabs that is pretty much designed to be insulting and get you riled.scumofsociety said:
Right, so you've acknowledged that it is for the most part meant to be coarse but friendly but you're still taking offense and deciding 80% of British people are dicks? That's just you being thin skinned, if you can't take it then stay at home, we won't miss you anymore than you miss us.emeraldrafael said:
Erm, Ever heard of wither the vikings with Vinland, or Newfoundland to us, or Cap-Rouge?emeraldrafael said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap-Rouge,_Quebec_City
Hardly survived due to attacks by Indians, Just saying.. Britain didn't start it, 'twas the French. "The French first came to the New World as explorers, seeking a route to the Pacific ocean and wealth"... beat us to it *shakes fist*
England founded Jamestown in 1607...50 odd years after France... and we traded just as much as the French with the "locals"I'm not saying the introduction of Europeans to the America's, and therefore Native Americans, wasn't drastic, but it was mainly due to disease...of which the Europeans themselves had built up an immunity... yes there was conflict, but that wasn't the main killer, look at Easter island...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island#History Disease being the main killer... Just saying, you can't put all the blame on the British here...
And the french weren't always, comment ca veut dire? nice... to their "subjects" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War#Conquest_of_Algeria
Mass rapes, scorched Earth Policy, massacres... just saying you know, can't whitewash one ancient country as being without blemishes...
And by the way 6% Native American... every human is 65% corn... just saying you know... not gunna go around saying I'm more corn than Cornish
Bad pun I know... Just had to...
emeraldrafael said:
I dont call my self Cherokee cause of the 6%. Its 6% of my ancestry but had a larger influence on my life then anything else. Its the difference between ethnicity and ancestry. And ethnicity defines a person.Kernow Chris said:
And thats great, I'll talk about it begin from america, but again, there's plenty of things you could talk to me about besides how my people were killed. Again, you odnt talk to a jew about the holocaust cause they say they're jewish, and to put it another way, you dont talk to a Brit about how the Colonies (with French aid, credit where credit is due), beat the world's biggest and strongest empire. You could talk to me about the differences of me being in America, or what my customs are, or... Or why I'm doing these travels. You odnt need to start with calling my ancestors savages.
to put it probably the greatest way, you odnt walk up to a person you find out is German and ask them about how they feel that their country men or ancestors (if they were in Germany at the time), felt following a psychopathic dictator bent on destroying many groups of people so blindly and resolutely.
And why cant i blame them? people think all Americans are fat greasy gutter mouthed gang bangers who think they are better then anyone else just by the way our leaders run the country, when only a small portion of the country even votes to elect those leaders and of those that vote half wont even agree cause it wasnt their candidate. Its stereotyping, and while I believe thats wrong (considering how I get stereotyped in my own country with people asking me to do a rain dance for them when we have droughts), when you physically go somehwere and the people are like that, its leaves a worse impression because you actually experience it.
And I cant speak for the French's actions in other portions of the world. its not an excuse but the difference there was gold while here it was furs. there wasnt a need to fight the native people because you werent trying to take something from them. You were doing what they did for many centuries. Yes, I realize the French were no better (maybe worse) then the way the British ran things in different portions of the world, but yo could probably say I'm biased since my mother always talked highly of the French. You may think I'm bad, but Its nothing compared to her. She wont even speak to a British person or anyone who's... Friendly, i guess is the best way to put it, and holds the British with high authority. She tells me everyday she hates the British blood in her and it... well... It pretty much devolves into a hate speech. So I could be far worse but I went to Britain with an open mind and do in fact have a good few British friends.
I live in Northern Ireland..i suppose that makes me British but somehow i feel i'd rather be Irish.
OK, you're making this very personal. You say 'my' people.. but they're not your people. It is likely that if your great(however many times) grandmother was raped by one man, she might have not wanted you. Hence she wished you not to exist and by extension did not confer 'her people' into you. The essence of your argument against all of these people is that you have chosen to cling to a genetically irrelevant percentage of your heritage and clung to it. If you have once Native American ancestor, then once raped, you have an identical percentage of English (also irrelevant) DNA.emeraldrafael said:
Neither of these are statistically likely to produce a 'native' phenotype. The culture you've soaked yourself in is a culture you've adopted, not inherited. You've then proceeded to say 'you did this' 'you did that' to the people on here. They are likely to have less of a link to the events than you, if that's even possible with your incredibly small percentage of genetic heritage.
I find it very unlikely that an unprovoked person in a generally non-aggressive or non-imposing situation in England would probe you under any circumstance unless drunk or stoned. It is part of the ingrained culture of polite passiveness in public, a culture which clearly you've missed if, as you say, 80% of everybody you ever met in the entire country proceeded to insult you based simply on a tiny amount of your geneology.
I'm sorry, I really am, but the plight of the Native American people isn't something the British focus on, people just genuinley have other things to occupy their minds with, like their own history, rather than that of some people who have had hardly any influence on their lives. As such, they're extremely unlikely to have a pre-formed opinion about 'your' geneology unless pressed on the issue since you are apparently studying those people.
You seem to have taken a stand in a thread not in any way aimed at you, about something which has no bearing on you, about something which is barely even relevant to you. All for what, to derail a thread? Or simply to try and consolidate your own tenuous link to a people who you are barely related to.