Advertisement
by Atlanticatia » Sun Jul 27, 2014 10:27 am
by Pandeeria » Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:12 am
Lavochkin wrote:Never got why educated people support communism.
In capitalism, you pretty much have a 50/50 chance of being rich or poor. In communism, it's 1/99. What makes people think they have the luck/skill to become the 1% if they can't even succeed in a 50/50 society???
by Rio Cana » Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:15 am
Greater-London wrote:Chucky Arla wrote:
Our contemporary pride in the past should be based on the context of THIS time.
No because then your not judging it by the standards of the day your still judging it by modern standards. For instance you can be proud that in the past the British Empire abolished slavery before many of its contemporaries.
No significant slave trade to Mexico had existed since 1739.
On December 6, 1810 Father Hidalgo proclaimed the abolition of slavery in Mexico. Later, when José María Morelos assumed command of the revolution he repeated Father Hidalgo's decree on January 29, 1813
In 1829 President Guerrero signed a decree abolishing slavery.
by Senkaku » Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:16 am
by Conserative Morality » Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:25 am
White Spider wrote:Looks like the majority of us Brits are proud of the British Empire :
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/07/26/bri ... ts20140727By three to one, British people think the British Empire is something to be proud of rather than ashamed of – they also tend to think it left its colonies better off, and a third would like it to still exist
Britain has long found it difficult to evaluate its former empire. Imperial nostalgia on television has been shamed by historians, and modern prime ministers have expressed ‘deep sorrow’ for Britain’s role in slavery – but they have also called on British people to celebrate the legacy of the Empire.
Among the British public, feelings tend to be positive. A new YouGov survey finds that most think the British Empire is more something to be proud of (59%) rather than ashamed of (19%). 23% don't know. Young people are least likely to feel pride over shame when it comes to the Empire, though about half (48%) of 18-24 year olds do. In comparison, about two-thirds (65%) of over 60s feel mostly proud.
Economically, the British Empire invested in infrastructure, established trading routes and installed institutions – but it also extracted resources, oversaw famines and in some cases left behind instability. Though many (36%) are unsure, British people do tend to think that, overall, former British colonies are now better off for having been part of the empire, by 49-15%.
A third of British people (34%) also say they would like it if Britain still had an empire. Under half (45%) say they would not like the Empire to exist today. 20% don’t know.
The Commonwealth Games in Glasgow this year are the latest reminder of the British Empire, and of a determination to present its legacy as constructive. YouGov also asked which countries British people would especially like to do well at the events, with Australia, New Zealand and Canada being most favoured.
Do you think they're right to be proud of it?
I am proud of all the good we brought to the world and it's hard not to feel pride in a nation having that kind of unbroken record for empire size. There have been some negatives but ultimately this all boils down to "well what did theRomansBritish ever do for us?"
by The Black Forrest » Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:42 am
by Gaiserin » Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:45 am
Merizoc wrote:The Mongolians should be prouder. Now that was an empire.
by OMGeverynameistaken » Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:46 am
Conserative Morality wrote:
Do you think they're right to be proud of it?
I am proud of all the good we brought to the world and it's hard not to feel pride in a nation having that kind of unbroken record for empire size. There have been some negatives but ultimately this all boils down to "well what did theRomansBritish ever do for us?"
by Atlanticatia » Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:50 am
by Rephesus » Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:50 am
by The Liberated Territories » Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:53 am
by Napkiraly » Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:55 am
Rephesus wrote:Kouralia wrote:It was also smaller than the British Empire.
Not by much:
"Empire Max. land area (million km2) Max. land area (million mi2) % of world land area Era Max. population (million) % of world population
British Empire 33.2[3] 12.82 22.43% 1922[3] 458.0 (in 1938)[4] 20.00% (458 million out of 2.295 billion in 1938)[4]
Mongol Empire 33.0[5][6][7] 12.74 22.29% 1279[5] 110.0 (in the 13th century)[8] 25.60% (110.0 million out of 429 million[9] in the 13th century)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires
Plus the Mongols were the largest continuous land empire, they didn't need a navy
by Marcurix » Sun Jul 27, 2014 12:09 pm
by Kouralia » Sun Jul 27, 2014 12:10 pm
Napkiraly wrote:Rephesus wrote:Not by much:
"Empire Max. land area (million km2) Max. land area (million mi2) % of world land area Era Max. population (million) % of world population
British Empire 33.2[3] 12.82 22.43% 1922[3] 458.0 (in 1938)[4] 20.00% (458 million out of 2.295 billion in 1938)[4]
Mongol Empire 33.0[5][6][7] 12.74 22.29% 1279[5] 110.0 (in the 13th century)[8] 25.60% (110.0 million out of 429 million[9] in the 13th century)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires
Plus the Mongols were the largest continuous land empire, they didn't need a navy
That just makes the British empire more impressive considering the logistics involved with a fragmented empire.
by Arabic Spain » Sun Jul 27, 2014 12:12 pm
by MERIZoC » Sun Jul 27, 2014 12:13 pm
Kouralia wrote:Napkiraly wrote:That just makes the British empire more impressive considering the logistics involved with a fragmented empire.
Indeed. We also kept our empire intact through two world wars (since arguably by the standards of 'fighting all around the globe', even if not by geographic distribution of combatants, the Napoleonic Wars were the first 'world wars'), and it didn't begin to collapse after the death of one ruler.
by Kouralia » Sun Jul 27, 2014 12:14 pm
Merizoc wrote:Kouralia wrote:Indeed. We also kept our empire intact through two world wars (since arguably by the standards of 'fighting all around the globe', even if not by geographic distribution of combatants, the Napoleonic Wars were the first 'world wars'), and it didn't begin to collapse after the death of one ruler.
It also took them several centuries to put it together, not several decades.
by Rio Cana » Sun Jul 27, 2014 12:36 pm
Terrordome wrote:It's quite a hard one for me to decide because it's hard to be proud of a history including torture, slavery, ethnic cleansing and economic exploitation.
But the fact is if the British hadn't claimed the empire, then the French, Spanish, Portugeuse and Germans would have filled the void. And they for the most part were even more brutal than the British, and have left less infrastructure behind in thier ex-colonies.
What I'm saying is that it could of been worse.
An official Spanish edict of 1664 offered freedom and land to African people from non-Spanish colonies, such as Jamaica and St. Dominique (Haiti), who immigrated to Puerto Rico and provided a population base to support the Puerto Rican garrison and its forts. These freeman who settled the western and southern parts of the island, soon adopted the ways and customs of the Spaniards. Some joined the local militia which fought against the British in their many attempts to invade the island.
by Wind in the Willows » Sun Jul 27, 2014 12:36 pm
Lalaki wrote:Colonization is not good for the colonized.
Now, some former colonies have been successful. The United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. But these are exceptions, not the rule. Look at certain regions of Africa, certain parts of the Middle East, India, etc.
by Aryavartha » Sun Jul 27, 2014 12:38 pm
OMGeverynameistaken wrote:
Not just to maximize profits, but to enforce economic dependence, particularly on the export of raw resources. After all, if the railroads only go from, lets say, Kimberly to Cape Town, what else are you going to do with them? That situation was common in most colonies were the colonial power built infrastructure. Roads and rails went from the inland areas to the ports.
In South Africa, they actually specifically constructed the railway so as to bypass the black farmers and pastoralists in the region, forcing them to drive their cattle to (British and Boer) settlements, where they would have to sell to British or Boer ranchers rather than directly to the exporters.
by Rio Cana » Sun Jul 27, 2014 12:45 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bovad, Ethel mermania, Hidrandia, Ifreann, ImperialRussia, La Xinga, Likhinia, Niolia, Ors Might, Phobos Drilling and Manufacturing, Quasi-Stellar Star Civilizations, Southland, Soviet Haaregrad, Tarsonis, Three Galaxies, Tiami, Torregal, Trump Almighty, Venusian Soviets
Advertisement