British Empire - Good or Bad?

[Vellosia]

But by that definition, you're also British, since the Union has yet to be dissolved. Would you favour an independent Highlands?

I would favour an independent Scotland that allows more recognition of the Gaelic Culture and Language then that of the current UK.

That can be done without indepedence.

[Lackadaisical2]

Name one country that has never used force to try and expand its borders and influence. I'll even believe you.

To expand one nation's borders if the area culturally, religious and etnic, as well as historical belongs to the nation, is not imperialism. If the nation takes by force others nations or areas, where the people is not willing to be a part of that nation, and do not culturally belong to the nation, is imperialism. Imperialism is bad, while nationalism is good.

And nations that have never used force to expand its borders and influences; Finland, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, just to mention a few

, those are funny ones.

[SD_Film Artists]

I would favour an independent Scotland that allows more recognition of the Gaelic Culture and Language then that of the current UK.

That can be done without indepedence.

This^ Though it's just a tool for Scottish Nats clinging on to somekind if difference. As a practical language....meh..

[Salandriagado]

Name one country that has never used force to try and expand its borders and influence. I'll even believe you.

To expand one nation's borders if the area culturally, religious and etnic, as well as historical belongs to the nation, is not imperialism. If the nation takes by force others nations or areas, where the people is not willing to be a part of that nation, and do not culturally belong to the nation, is imperialism. Imperialism is bad, while nationalism is good.

And nations that have never used force to expand its borders and influences; Finland, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, just to mention a few

Finland: Continuation war (Shifting the borders with Russia)
Switzerland: Battle of Arbedo (attempt to take Milanese territory, there were many more successful attempts prior to this)
Norway: Theatre War (shifting the borders with Sweden)
Iceland: Cod wars (expanding it's nautical territory)

Just the latest one I could find from each.





Anyway, in general, yes, the empire was bad. However, the way it was dissolved was worse. It was done too quickly and with too little regard for the economic and political situations of the newly created states they left behind, a series of mistakes that they're still suffering for now.

[Lucatopia]

If I had to take a postion, I'd say bad. All arguments on civilizing the world are surely invalid as these are clearly eurocentrist in nature. But everybody likes to romanticize their past.

[Allied Governments]

Ultimately, a world without competition or conflict is not conducive to advancement, both technologically/infrastructure/industry and socially (assuming there are generous periods of peace.) The British did some terrible things yes, but when you look at the final product you have a superpower (US,) a nation well on it's way to becoming the next great superpower (India) and a de facto language used for trade, science and commerce.

[H-Alba]

I would favour an independent Scotland that allows more recognition of the Gaelic Culture and Language then that of the current UK.

That can be done without indepedence.

I would rather be an independent nation then stuck in an union with another nation that did not like nor appreciate your own culture -- Especially when many of them still call it a "caveman" and "barbarian" culture today.

[Vestr-Norig]

To expand one nation's borders if the area culturally, religious and etnic, as well as historical belongs to the nation, is not imperialism. If the nation takes by force others nations or areas, where the people is not willing to be a part of that nation, and do not culturally belong to the nation, is imperialism. Imperialism is bad, while nationalism is good.

And nations that have never used force to expand its borders and influences; Finland, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, just to mention a few

Finland: Continuation war (Shifting the borders with Russia)
Switzerland: Battle of Arbedo (attempt to take Milanese territory, there were many more successful attempts prior to this)
Norway: Theatre War (shifting the borders with Sweden)
Iceland: Cod wars (expanding it's nautical territory)

Just the latest one I could find from each.






Anyway, in general, yes, the empire was bad. However, the way it was dissolved was worse. It was done too quickly and with too little regard for the economic and political situations of the newly created states they left behind, a series of mistakes that they're still suffering for now.

Non of these has nothing to do with imperialism, only nationalism

[SD_Film Artists]

To expand one nation's borders if the area culturally, religious and etnic, as well as historical belongs to the nation, is not imperialism. If the nation takes by force others nations or areas, where the people is not willing to be a part of that nation, and do not culturally belong to the nation, is imperialism. Imperialism is bad, while nationalism is good.

And nations that have never used force to expand its borders and influences; Finland, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, just to mention a few

Finland: Continuation war (Shifting the borders with Russia)
Switzerland: Battle of Arbedo (attempt to take Milanese territory, there were many more successful attempts prior to this)
Norway: Theatre War (shifting the borders with Sweden)
Iceland: Cod wars (expanding it's nautical territory)

Just the latest one I could find from each.





Anyway, in general, yes, the empire was bad. However, the way it was dissolved was worse. It was done too quickly and with too little regard for the economic and political situations of the newly created states they left behind, a series of mistakes that they're still suffering for now.

Indeed; you don't see Hong Kong having problems with dictatorship and poverty. ......well..there is China's human rights abuses and fake democracy, but that's another issue..

[Lackadaisical2]

It can be, if your culture is worthwhile.

That seems very biased, claiming one culture to be better than another.

Well, any measure of good or bad is inherently biased, but I would guess we can agree that raising standards of health, setting up proper governance(no corruption, some form of popular responsibility and accountability either through democracy or other means), increasing standards of living, etc. would be good.

[Vellosia]

That can be done without indepedence.

I would rather be an independent nation then stuck in an union with another nation that did not like nor appreciate your own culture -- Especially when many of them still call it a "caveman" and "barbarian" culture today.

I see your point but I think there comes a time when one should move on from past wrongs. Besides, I have no knowledge of people in England who consider Gaelic and Highland culture as 'barbaric', especially considering that they contributed so much to making the UK the power it is today.

[Lackadaisical2]

If I had to take a postion, I'd say bad. All arguments on civilizing the world are surely invalid as these are clearly eurocentrist in nature. But everybody likes to romanticize their past.

How can you dismiss all euro-centric viewpoints and then go ahead and declare something 'bad'?

Surely your definition of good and bad is just as biased.

[Salandriagado]

Finland: Continuation war (Shifting the borders with Russia)
Switzerland: Battle of Arbedo (attempt to take Milanese territory, there were many more successful attempts prior to this)
Norway: Theatre War (shifting the borders with Sweden)
Iceland: Cod wars (expanding it's nautical territory)

Just the latest one I could find from each.

Non of these has nothing to do with imperialism, only nationalism

Anyway, in general, yes, the empire was bad. However, the way it was dissolved was worse. It was done too quickly and with too little regard for the economic and political situations of the newly created states they left behind, a series of mistakes that they're still suffering for now.

Fixed that for you. I quite agree. The original challenge, however, wasn't to provide nations that have never undertaken imperialism, it was nations that have never expanded their borders by force. I'd also argue the nature of the Swiss-Milanese war. I'd say they're far too separated ethnically to call it nationalism. I'd also argue that there is no difference, in any objective frame of reference, between the two.

[SD_Film Artists]

That can be done without indepedence.

I would rather be an independent nation then stuck in an union with another nation that did not like nor appreciate your own culture -- Especially when many of them still call it a "caveman" and "barbarian" culture today.

You'll get that nomatter how much power the Scottish parliament has. Norfolk is rarely mentioned on TV without being followed by an incest joke. But I'd still gladly fly the union jack.


......not that incest is my culture.....

Different areas always take the piss out of other areas, but said different areas are better together than without, sharing a proud history together.


..and I havn't heard people saying "caveman" or "barbarian". Wishful thoughts of a Nationalist perhaps? As the worst enemy of a Scottish nationalist (or at least the racist brand of Scottish nationalism) is a lovely kind Englishman. As nasty Englishmen perpetuate the myth that we're still living in Medieval times.

[Parhe]

Finland: Continuation war (Shifting the borders with Russia)
Switzerland: Battle of Arbedo (attempt to take Milanese territory, there were many more successful attempts prior to this)
Norway: Theatre War (shifting the borders with Sweden)
Iceland: Cod wars (expanding it's nautical territory)

Just the latest one I could find from each.



Anyway, in general, yes, the empire was bad. However, the way it was dissolved was worse. It was done too quickly and with too little regard for the economic and political situations of the newly created states they left behind, a series of mistakes that they're still suffering for now.

Indeed; you don't see Hong Kong having problems with dictatorship and poverty. ......well..there is China's human rights abuses and fake democracy, but that's another issue..

I only know four English colonies granted freedom that is well off, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Hong Kong. But, the majoritty of people in hong kong did not want to be returned to China, they favored being a British colony. I am sure there are more than four British colonies in Africa granted freedom that is not well off.

[Salandriagado]

Indeed; you don't see Hong Kong having problems with dictatorship and poverty. ......well..there is China's human rights abuses and fake democracy, but that's another issue..

I only know four English colonies granted freedom that is well off, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Hong Kong. But, the majoritty of people in hong kong did not want to be returned to China, they favored being a British colony. I am sure there are more than four British colonies in Africa granted freedom that is not well off.

USA

Also, yes, the African colonies are royally fucked, because of the reasons I mentioned earlier.

[Lackadaisical2]

Indeed; you don't see Hong Kong having problems with dictatorship and poverty. ......well..there is China's human rights abuses and fake democracy, but that's another issue..

I only know four English colonies granted freedom that is well off, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Hong Kong. But, the majoritty of people in hong kong did not want to be returned to China, they favored being a British colony. I am sure there are more than four British colonies in Africa granted freedom that is not well off.

Singapore is doing quite well, Malaysia is alright, same as South Africa and Botswana (the AIDS epidemic is hurting those last two the most, through no fault of British Rule)

[Vestr-Norig]

Non of these has nothing to do with imperialism, only nationalism

Fixed that for you. I quite agree. The original challenge, however, wasn't to provide nations that have never undertaken imperialism, it was nations that have never expanded their borders by force. I'd also argue the nature of the Swiss-Milanese war. I'd say they're far too separated ethnically to call it nationalism. I'd also argue that there is no difference, in any objective frame of reference, between the two.

Well, Finland only got independent from Russia, they never expanded their territory, and in the winter war they lost territory to Russia
Norway never fought an war against Sweden for independence but secceded peacfully.
And earlier, the only reason Norway was in war with Sweden, was because it was in union with Denmark.

[H-Alba]

I would rather be an independent nation then stuck in an union with another nation that did not like nor appreciate your own culture -- Especially when many of them still call it a "caveman" and "barbarian" culture today.

You'll get that nomatter how much power the Scottish parliament has. Norfolk is rarely mentioned on TV without being followed by an incest joke. But I'd still gladly fly the union jack.


......not that incest is my culture.....

Different areas always take the piss out of other areas, but said different areas are better together than without, sharing a proud history together.


..and I havn't heard people saying "caveman" or "barbarian". Wishful thoughts of a Nationalist perhaps? As the worst enemy of a Scottish nationalist (or at least the racist brand of Scottish nationalism) is a lovely kind Englishman. As nasty Englishmen perpetuate the myth that we're still living in Medieval times.

I've been told several times on the forums here that the Highland culture is Barbaric and "cavemen" as well as the normal things as "Backwards" and "Mediaeval"

[Lucatopia]

If I had to take a postion, I'd say bad. All arguments on civilizing the world are surely invalid as these are clearly eurocentrist in nature. But everybody likes to romanticize their past.

How can you dismiss all euro-centric viewpoints and then go ahead and declare something 'bad'?

Surely your definition of good and bad is just as biased.

Did I do such a thing? Aw hell naw. I'm European and I gladly doubt my cultural preeminence over others. Defending eurocentrism is just plain wrong. That's what's biased.

[SD_Film Artists]

You'll get that nomatter how much power the Scottish parliament has. Norfolk is rarely mentioned on TV without being followed by an incest joke. But I'd still gladly fly the union jack.


......not that incest is my culture.....

Different areas always take the piss out of other areas, but said different areas are better together than without, sharing a proud history together.


..and I havn't heard people saying "caveman" or "barbarian". Wishful thoughts of a Nationalist perhaps? As the worst enemy of a Scottish nationalist (or at least the racist brand of Scottish nationalism) is a lovely kind Englishman. As nasty Englishmen perpetuate the myth that we're still living in Medieval times.

I've been told several times on the forums here that the Highland culture is Barbaric and "cavemen" as well as the normal things as "Backwards" and "Mediaeval"

Well that would depend what parts of the culture.

Ignoring Scotland's proud history as a partner with England is backwards and medieval, though I wouldn't say that Scotland itself is backwards, medieval or anything else bad.

[Vellosia]

You'll get that nomatter how much power the Scottish parliament has. Norfolk is rarely mentioned on TV without being followed by an incest joke. But I'd still gladly fly the union jack.


......not that incest is my culture.....

Different areas always take the piss out of other areas, but said different areas are better together than without, sharing a proud history together.


..and I havn't heard people saying "caveman" or "barbarian". Wishful thoughts of a Nationalist perhaps? As the worst enemy of a Scottish nationalist (or at least the racist brand of Scottish nationalism) is a lovely kind Englishman. As nasty Englishmen perpetuate the myth that we're still living in Medieval times.

I've been told several times on the forums here that the Highland culture is Barbaric and "cavemen" as well as the normal things as "Backwards" and "Mediaeval"

And how are a few people on a forum any true reflection of nationwide opinion? I think most English have quite a bit of respect for Highlands culture (largely due to the Highland Regiments, admittedly).

Scotland has acheived so much as part of the Union and I merely fear that by becoming independent it will throw all of that away.

[Salandriagado]

Fixed that for you. I quite agree. The original challenge, however, wasn't to provide nations that have never undertaken imperialism, it was nations that have never expanded their borders by force. I'd also argue the nature of the Swiss-Milanese war. I'd say they're far too separated ethnically to call it nationalism. I'd also argue that there is no difference, in any objective frame of reference, between the two.

Well, Finland only got independent from Russia, they never expanded their territory, and in the winter war they lost territory to Russia

The Continuation war was an attempt to seize land from Russia. Specifically, non-Finnish land:

Specifically for the Continuation War, Finland also aimed at reversing its territorial losses under the March 1940 Moscow Peace Treaty and by extending its territory further east

Norway never fought an war against Sweden for independence but secceded peacfully.
And earlier, the only reason Norway was in war with Sweden, was because it was in union with Denmark.

1) Norway gained its independence from Denmark, not Sweden
2) It actively fought to oppose the Swedish independence
3) At that point, the union was a personal union, with both countries being considered separate, but ruled by the same man. It was still an attempt to expand Norwegian territory

[Parhe]

I only know four English colonies granted freedom that is well off, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Hong Kong. But, the majoritty of people in hong kong did not want to be returned to China, they favored being a British colony. I am sure there are more than four British colonies in Africa granted freedom that is not well off.

Singapore is doing quite well, Malaysia is alright, same as South Africa and Botswana (the AIDS epidemic is hurting those last two the most, through no fault of British Rule)

I do agree with Singapore, but disagree with Malaysia, I've known people from the country who sees it as mostly falling behind most other Asian countries. But weren't all these countries under some sort of problems. After being left by the British, South Africa was under apartheid until 1990, Malaysia suffered ethnic tension and opposition from Indonesia, Singapore left Malaysia after conflicts and was ruled under a dictatorship, and Botswana, well, its not well of now, and I don't really think it ever was, so you win that one.

[Izzyshipper]

Care to elaborate?

All the British Empire did was spread English culture around the world. I am glad the world is the way it is today, yes. And I wouldn't want to go back to change it. I think there were more effective ways then building an empire.

As for my second statement I feel the term British is unfair. When people say British then tend to mean English, and the "other Brits' are left out in "British Culture".

I would have to disagree, Scotland was a huge part of the Empire. The Edinburgh middle classes provided an siginificant part if the Civil Service, as well as several Viceroys, Governors and PM's all over the Empire being Scottish or of Scottish descent.

The former colony's of Canada and New Zealand have a vibrant culture influenced by Scots. As well as many Scottish preachers, teachers and doctors shaping the Empire's inhabitants with their work.