Thyunda said:
Starke said:
What does your name have to do with your political affiliation? Absolutely nothing.
Then you've never been to Ireland. I know of few other countries where your name denotes your religious and political beliefs.
When in point of fact it doesn't. It doesn't. You can shove your fingers in your ears and pretend you live in some alternate universe where human beings are hive minded organisms, where once you've spoken to one member of a hive, you know what they all are, but people, people everywhere on the goddamn planet, are individuals. You know, individuals, as in unique, just like everyone else. You want to say Ireland is a country where you have to conform under risk of violence, that's fine, but don't pretend that there isn't a single dissenting voice in the isles.
Thyunda said:
Look. Stop trying to speak for members of the United Kingdom when you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
I could say the same for the Middle East. You clearly have no grasp of the region or its political realities. All you seem to know is, "ARG America bad, stir up middle east." When in point of fucking fact, the history, the stirring, and the instability all stretch back to long before you were born.
Thyunda said:
The most defiance I saw from a Scot was when my Glaswegian cousin visited, and had a fierce argument about the legality of Scottish money.
It's legal tender.
And I have met and spoken with Scots who were fucking furious that they didn't have their sovereignty. You know that thing I mentioned a while back? Individuality? Yeah, that thing? It turns out not everyone tells you everything, especially since you're an outsider. Where as I was talking with close friends. Big difference, apparently. And, as with Ireland, screaming for independence to every random passers by might still be a pretty good way to get your ass investigated by MI5.
Thyunda said:
Also. I don't know why I have to keep hammering this at you. I have not denied that the British Empire did bad things. You know who else did bad things? The Romans. The Byzantines. The Norse. The Turks. The Egyptians. EVERYBODY.
So, what, I take it that America is the nicest country around, because it missed the imperialist stage of history? No. Now we live in a 'peaceful, civilised age', and America STILL wages a backroom war on peoples it sees as inferior. That's the big middle finger you've given to the world. You push 'democracy' and 'freedom' on the world, without realising the hypocrisy of the statement. Not that it matters. It's bullshit anyway.
It is all bullshit. The state of the world isn't that improved. Look at the back room dealings of any country, Russia, the UK, France, even in just the last twenty to thirty years. Now what has happened is people have taken to hiding their dirty laundry, while the US is, as a structure of government, fucking horrible at it. I mean we had political appointees outing intelligence officers over petty politics. You want to bet what would happen if a Russian bureaucrat exposed a member of the RSB that way? Or Mussad? No one's perfect, but you came at this conversation with the perspective that the world hates us and it blows back on you, when in fact, it tends to be, what you've done blows back on you.
Thyunda said:
Starke said:
EDIT 2: A also really object to Thyunda's assertion that the British were somehow loved by the middle east until Bush, and that the animosity there is our fault. When in point of fact, they were as much targets before.
American bipolarity indeed. I said we weren't hated as much as America. Clearly, that translated to you as 'President of England's fan club'.
When you were whining about how no one was bombing London until after we set them off? Close enough.
For the bulk of the Cold War American policy makers looked at the world in as a Bipolar System (in this case, Bipolar meaning two poles, not mentally unhinged). Either you were the good guys or the bad guys. It was this Bipolar model which informed involvement in Vietnam, intervention in Iran, most American involvement in Latin America. The fact of the matter is, this is how many policy makers continued to view the world after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Thyunda said:
Oh, and genocide is traditional. Can't really get around that - for thousands of years genocide was synonymous with 'victory'. You won't meet many Hittites, that's for sure.
The Native Americans are the first people to lose their country and not their heritage. Do you know how many true Englishmen I've met in my entire life?
Just one. A direct descendant of the Cornovii tribe. I think Cornovii was right...I can't remember.
I'm honestly surprised you've met that many.
Thyunda said:
But everybody else is a mix of the forces that conquered us. The English have been wiped out and replaced so many times, claiming that the native Americans were hard done to is just plain ludicrous. We COULD have just killed them all. That's what everybody else did. It's what the Portuguese did to the original South American cultures.
And, indeed the Dutch and the English tried when these were still theirs. Well, when New Amsterdam was theirs, and the English tried. As a matter of resources, the Imperial colonies didn't have the capacity to exterminate the natives. Too much land, not enough force. So, in a way the Native Americans got off better than most in that regard. Does it make it okay? No, but it's better than what the your natives faced.
Thyunda said:
Put simply - the reservations existed. Therefore not genocide. Therefore it's a stupid argument. When your Bible advocates complete genocide, you are in no place to criticise the actions of the colonists.
The reservations came much later, long after English involvement was terminated. Also, it's not my bible. You see, unlike some members of this conversation, I don't live in a nation with a State Religion. And, as I previously pointed out, I am an individual, meaning making assumptions like "you're a Christian" are prone to being off base.