Britain is responsible for all the ills of the World?

[fr8neck]

People who suppose that there is any meaningful connection, or ever has been, between the average British person and those who exercise power are delusional: so why would I care?

 

The class of those-who-matter has the same relationship, in the USA, (as in Britain), to the general populace; whose productive efforts it leeches off.

 

The 'baton' of dominion was taken by the USA before the end of WW2.

 

None of the behaviours of the US administrations since WW2 have been determined by British interests, only by the interests of corporate America.

 

Why waste time on such rubbish: the buck stops with whoever has the actual power, and since WW2 that is the US government: possessing both the economic power and the military force.

 

Any British government can suggest actions to a US one, but they have had no reason to concur, (other than pursuit of their own interests), since Independence.

[Annoni_mouse]

When the British colonised the world it was done in a benovelent fashion.

That is in comparison to those days.

Do not forget the country was run by the aristocracy, and the new trader barons.

The slaves abroad were in some cases a lot better treat than the wage slaves at home.

Also do not forget that slavery is not an English invention.

They merely took advantage.

It was organised by the Arabs, and carried out by the Negroes of what is now Nigeria and environs.

 

You cant possibly believe that?

 

No Empire in history has been run benevolently. Whilst I would agree that there were certain positive aspects of the British empire, these were mostly in spite of rather than because of the empire.

 

Make no mistake, the British empire was established, like all the empires before it and any which will follow it, purely for the gain of the parent nation.

[shoeshine]

Totally agree - but look at how nations like Belgium and France handled their colonies in Africa.

 

We had slaves - as did the Arabs, French, Belgians, the Americans themselves.

 

In thsoe days it's what people did, I guess - build empires.

 

The guy involved in writing the book (OK he may be a self-publicist ) but he claims that our Imperialist claims, under arms, and putting the "red" on the globe encouraged other nations to colonise and exploit several other powers at the time......in a copycat fashion.

[fr8neck]

Annoni_mouse;2016049]You cant possibly believe that?

 

No Empire in history has been run benevolently. Whilst I would agree that there were certain positive aspects of the British empire, these were mostly in spite of rather than because of the empire.

 

Make no mistake, the British empire was established, like all the empires before it and any which will follow it, purely for the gain of the parent nation.[/

 

The ruling class of the parent nation, I would suggest.

[Annoni_mouse]

The guy involved in writing the book (OK he may be a self-publicist ) but he claims that our Imperialist claims, under arms, and putting the "red" on the globe encouraged other nations to colonise and exploit several other powers at the time......in a copycat fashion.

 

Which would be a valid argument if Britain had invented the concept of Empire.

 

My argument has always been that we can look back on the past, and yes, by todays standards the concept of colonising a foreign country should be abhorrent to us, but as JoeP rightly said, at the time, it was simply the done thing.

 

Its not our fault that we were better at it than anyone else:D

 

The ruling class of the parent nation, I would suggest.

 

I would concur :thumsup:

[StarSparkle]

The guy involved in writing the book (OK he may be a self-publicist ) but he claims that our Imperialist claims, under arms, and putting the "red" on the globe encouraged other nations to colonise and exploit several other powers at the time......in a copycat fashion.

 

So we literally forced all these other poor European countries into taking the decisions they did? They weren't at all responsible for their own actions? I don't think so. Is it Britain's fault if other nations decided to be 'copycats'?

 

Oh please Shoeshine really.... The whole thing's absolute codswallop. The 'author' is just a Yank with a chip on his shoulder out to make a name for himself quickly, and rake in the bucks while people like you are publicising his crap. I bet he's laughing himself silly

 

StarSparkle

[fr8neck]

The guy involved in writing the book (OK he may be a self-publicist ) but he claims that our Imperialist claims, under arms, and putting the "red" on the globe encouraged other nations to colonise and exploit several other powers at the time......in a copycat fashion.

 

Then his grasp of historical chronology and European power relationships is faulty.

 

Britain was, until nearly the end of imperial expansion, a relatively small European 'power', in contrast to Spain, France, Russia, and later an expansionist Germany.

 

The British government was always concerned about more, or equivalently powerful, 'powers' around them: Not a problem in policy decisions for the US in postwar times.

[JoeP]

The guy involved in writing the book (OK he may be a self-publicist ) but he claims that our Imperialist claims, under arms, and putting the "red" on the globe encouraged other nations to colonise and exploit several other powers at the time......in a copycat fashion.

 

Yes, I know - the argument has been posited a number of times, actually.

 

Given that the Spanish and the Dutch both had fairly good empires and overseas interests befroe we got our backsides in gear, it's not a good argument.

 

The Spaniards were conquering the Aztecs in 1520, the portugese were grabbing bits of South East Asia in the mid 16th Century and teh Dutch grabbed these possessions from teh Portugese in 1605 or so.

 

Excluding Ireland, the first PERMANENT British overseas settlement was Jamestown in 1607, and most historians record the start of teh British Empire to the beginning of the 17th century - rather behind the other European Powers.

[shoeshine]

So we literally forced all these other poor European countries into taking the decisions they did? They weren't at all responsible for their own actions? I don't think so. Is it Britain's fault if other nations decided to be 'copycats'?

 

Oh please Shoeshine really.... The whole thing's absolute codswallop. The 'author' is just a Yank with a chip on his shoulder out to make a name for himself quickly, and rake in the bucks while people like you are publicising his crap. I bet he's laughing himself silly

 

StarSparkle

 

Good luck to him if he does.

 

No-one has said other countries were "forced" to do anything. There were competing naval nations like France, Spain and Portugal around in the 15/16thC.....some, like Spain decided to concentrate on South America (the British were elsewhere, most of the time)......etc etc......

 

WW1 was a mid-Continental argument between the the Austro-Hungarian Empire (for what it was worth), and Germany going back years.....as was the territorial rights to the Sudentanland) between Germany and France.

 

I think......or was that territorial competition between France and Germany regarding ownership of Alsace/Lorraine areas?

 

You tell me. I was just educated in history, many years ago in school with a biased "British is Best" educational system.

[artisan]

You cant possibly believe that?

 

No Empire in history has been run benevolently. Whilst I would agree that there were certain positive aspects of the British empire, these were mostly in spite of rather than because of the empire.

 

Make no mistake, the British empire was established, like all the empires before it and any which will follow it, purely for the gain of the parent nation.

 

Yes that is quite correct.

But while the English were there conditions improved dramatically.

In reality the only people who suffered during the British Empire were the people at home.

All others saw a massive leap in living conditions.