Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Hrothbern, Mar 22, 2019.
Too subtle for me
Oh, well I was making fun of American politicians and Americans who unironically think America is "the indispensable nation" but will react with confusion and even anger if you suggest that the USA is an empire.
And how does this explain away the British Commonwealth, surely one of the great institutions around, consisting of over 50 countries and about one third of the population on earth. If we were so bad, why does it exist and why so many countries? (Afaik, the only former colonies not a member are Ireland and Zimbabwe. The latter has reapplied for membership).
It no longer has the word British in the title but the Queen is its head.
No, it was mostly a question of Sovereignty. A bit like all those colonies of ours wanting their independence.
They had wars in Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, Cyprus, Egypt, Oman, Yemen, and Kenya. Just because they didn't turn into French quagmires doesn't mean they didn't happen.
Please try to read my posts more carefully. I agreed upon "average". I disagreed on "not that bad".
While @innonimatu was comparing what the British were doing to what other European countries were doing, I'm not really as interested in a pissing match over whether Britain or France ruined its former colonies less. (I would've thought that the Little Englanders would be the ones putting those words into my mouth, but apparently all the Englanders, and even some of the French, are.) I'm more interested in what the colonizers actually left behind.
I don't deny the existence of relatively bloodless and effective transitions. I would say that, for example, the decolonization of Zambia/Northern Rhodesia and Hong Kong could reasonably be described as "not that bad". Some of the White Dominions left slowly and peacefully and that seems to have worked out for them. Many of Britain's former colonies did not leave in the way that Zambia and Hong Kong did. America didn't. Ireland didn't. India and Pakistan didn't. Malaysia didn't. Israel and Palestine didn't. You get the idea.
And while that certainly is comparable to other European countries, I simply can't bring myself to say that it wasn't "that bad". It was that bad. They were (and are) all "that bad". Some (Belgium) were worse than "that bad", but the fact that Belgium's withdrawal from Congo in 1959-60 was about as horrifically and bloodily managed as is possible doesn't somehow make the independence of Israel and Palestine not a disaster.
Anyway. Original point for posting was to highlight the silliness of the "well, if Britain and the White Dominions don't hate each other, why is Europe making Britain hate it now?" argument. I...think I did that? I dunno. If I have a fight to pick in this thread, it's not with you.
nah spain was a nightmare
wow get over yourself
this is why everybody is laughing at the brits over brexit
also Myanmar/Burma and Yemen/Aden, plus all of the Mandates, protectorates, and condominiums that usually got colored in red on those Empire World Maps that get the jingos hard: Egypt, Oman, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE, Qatar, (British) Somaliland, and Sudan
Maldives also left but then submitted an application for renewed membership two years later
the disasters associated with British decolonization did happen, and the existence of the Commonwealth doesn't make them suddenly go away, any more than the existence of Françafrique makes French decolonization less of a nightmare
since the Commonwealth was an extremely low-cost institution (in large part because it stopped being a proxy for the British Empire both in fact and name), even leaders that were diplomatically opposed to Britain (or leaders with, uh, "aggressive Anglophilia", like Idi Amin) stayed in it
this is genuinely adorable
Sort of an odd disconnect when he simultaneously claims the British Empire couldn't have been that bad and likens Brexit to the independence struggles of former British colonies, innit?
You also said "really, really bad" first which is hardly the same as average.
The average of "really bad" and "really, really, really bad" is "really, really bad". Absolute versus relative descriptions.
To be rated bad at something someone else must have been good at it. Who handled decolonisation well?
This feels like the first step on the path to finding the good genocide, in relation to which other genocides can be considered bad.
Sometimes things are bad because they produce human suffering, and not because they score at the bottom of a league-table. I didn't realise, and still can't quite believe, this is not innately obvious.
Which would apply to colonisation, slavery etc. Presumably not decolonisation which is what Dachs said Britian handled really, really badly.
This is excellent advice. Please let's follow it.
I chanced upon that interview by the Beeb and got the impression that the man really is as out of his depth and in severe denial as snippets and transcriptions have seemed to indicate these past few months.
God help us.
Yes, it was because there are too many dark-skinned Asians and Caribbeans already.
I read a few days ago that the only person who can defeat Boris Johnson is Boris Johnson. I had no idea how true that was. If he continues to mess up he may actually lose.
Johnson says UK will leave EU on 31 October 'do or die'
If no Brexit means no Boris then this sounds like a deal everybody but him will be glad to accept. Except for the few hundred people who actually vote or control those who do.
If we follow your reasoning and judge everything in history compared to today's values, then we can say that 99,9 % of History was absolutely horrible, far beyond the timid "bad" of decolonization.
At which point the question is : what does "bad" means anymore without context ?
Oh, what a surprise. Johnson is only now starting to encounter political reality and will likely soon be merely the puppet of the ERG.
Hm, that kind of quote really can't be just attributed to incompetence or idiocy. Is Boris so reckless that he just decided he doesn't want to lead the party despite his clique having eliminated all other brexiters?
Well, he's now spitting distance from the most important job in the land, so already the Brexiters are turning the screws on him. He doesn't want to fail at the last hurdle and he certainly doesn't want to be the PM with the shortest tenure in history, so for now, those 28 Brexiters are the Government and the 160,000 Tory members are the electorate. Ain't democracy grand?
I don't think that is enough to justify saying "do or die". He simply can't be imbecilic enough to be unaware of how bad that statement was.
Separate names with a comma.