What I mean is, how isolated does a country have to be before it's non-imperial?
Advertisement
by SD_Film Artists » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:15 am
by Vestr-Norig » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:16 am
by Muspelheim II » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:17 am
Parhe wrote:Allied Governments wrote:
What kind of world was Nazi Germany living in as opposed to the British when they were making their empire? It's downright stupid to try and impose modern day ethics and morality to people who lived 200-300 years ago, they had completely different outlooks on a ton of things.
Maybe I should make a thread saying how the Roman Gladiatorial games were barbaric, or how the Aztecs and Mayans were bloodthirsty savages that pretty much deserved to be wiped out.
Maybe you should, I agree the games were barbaric and the Aztecs and Mayans were somewhat savage like. But I wouldn't call them exactly bloodthirsty, and I wouldn't say they deserved to be wiped out.
by SD_Film Artists » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:17 am
Vestr-Norig wrote:Blazedtown wrote:
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
by Parhe » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:17 am
Vestr-Norig wrote:Blazedtown wrote:
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
by Vestr-Norig » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:18 am
by Shikarta » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:18 am
Angleter wrote:H-Alba wrote:
I never have, nor will I ever identify myself as British. I've always identified myself as Scottish when asked for a nationality, or as an ethnic Gael when asked for ethnicity.
Why not, though? If a Highland Gael is able to appreciate their Scottishness that is shared with the Lowlanders who discriminated against them, then why on Earth is the notion of also appreciating what one shares with England, Northern Ireland and Wales so unpalatable?
by Parhe » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:19 am
Muspelheim II wrote:Parhe wrote:Maybe you should, I agree the games were barbaric and the Aztecs and Mayans were somewhat savage like. But I wouldn't call them exactly bloodthirsty, and I wouldn't say they deserved to be wiped out.
You wouldn't call them bloodthirsty? The Aztecs used to sacrifice thousands of people at a time for their gods. The Spanish on entering Tenochtitlan commented on the stench of dead bodies and were horrified by the brutal scenes they witness (okay it may be biased but it still holds some water). How much more would you like for it to be considered blood thirsty?
by Greto » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:19 am
The Western Russians wrote:Move to London and you get a fuck load of chavs shouting at you telling you you're going to get stabbed. Whereas in Scotland you get a fuck load of homeless people shouting at you telling you you're going to get stabbed. Move to Wales and you'll get a fuck load of DRG telling you you're going to get stabbed. Move to Ireland you're going to get a fuck load of IRA telling you you're going to get bombed.
by Angleter » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:20 am
H-Alba wrote:Angleter wrote:
Why not, though? If a Highland Gael is able to appreciate their Scottishness that is shared with the Lowlanders who discriminated against them, then why on Earth is the notion of also appreciating what one shares with England, Northern Ireland and Wales so unpalatable?
I was born in Scotland, that is the nation and country I was born in. I do not like the culture of the Lowlands, nor do I "appreciate it". All I can do is say the country I was born in. There are Americans who are not proud to be American, does this mean they can't call themselves americans? I'm Scottish, because it's the country I was born in, but I'm proud of the Highland Culture I was raised in.
by SD_Film Artists » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:20 am
Shikarta wrote:Angleter wrote:
Why not, though? If a Highland Gael is able to appreciate their Scottishness that is shared with the Lowlanders who discriminated against them, then why on Earth is the notion of also appreciating what one shares with England, Northern Ireland and Wales so unpalatable?
I suppose it's because we're both somewhat ashamed of being 'British', and also because our indigenous culture(s) may be effaced by a British identity. To perhaps oversimplify it, it's a reaction against a perceived threat.
by Vestr-Norig » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:20 am
Parhe wrote:Vestr-Norig wrote:
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
Other than Iceland, they all did, except possibly Finland
by SD_Film Artists » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:23 am
by Parhe » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:23 am
Greto wrote:It helped spread values of freedom, democracy, and industry it also spread Anglo culture and the English language it also has given rise to some of the most powerful nations of Earth(America and Canada) though like all other Great Powers it has it's dark side including the genocide of the native populations of the Americas with the highest estimate I have ever seen was 50 million by different things mostly warfare and spread of European diseases.
by Shikarta » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:25 am
SD_Film Artists wrote:Shikarta wrote:
I suppose it's because we're both somewhat ashamed of being 'British', and also because our indigenous culture(s) may be effaced by a British identity. To perhaps oversimplify it, it's a reaction against a perceived threat.
I'm from Norfolk and proud of it, but I still fly the union jack.
by Lackadaisical2 » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:25 am
The Republic of Lanos wrote:Proud member of the Vile Right-Wing Noodle Combat Division of the Imperialist Anti-Socialist Economic War Army Ground Force reporting in.
by Parhe » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:25 am
by Matthew De Vareil » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:26 am
KludgeMUSH wrote:Well, given that the most apparent and noticeable product of the British Empire is America, and that if the British had stayed home, we'd probably be dealing with the Mexican Empire today, you decide whether that would have been good or bad.
by Parhe » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:26 am
by Angleter » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:26 am
Vestr-Norig wrote:Blazedtown wrote:
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
by Lackadaisical2 » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:29 am
Aurora-Nova wrote:Living in a former British colony, Canada, I feel, on the whole, that the impact of the British Empire was equally good and bad, in various aspects and various places. I still oppose it on the basis, however, that the idea of empire is unappealing to me, and I believe that people everywhere should be able to manage their own affairs. I'm also opposed to it from a colonial perspective, and think that areas that were colonized by Europeans and had their native populations nearly wiped out - the Americas and Oceania in particular - should be returned, where possible, to their original inhabitants.
The Republic of Lanos wrote:Proud member of the Vile Right-Wing Noodle Combat Division of the Imperialist Anti-Socialist Economic War Army Ground Force reporting in.
by SD_Film Artists » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:30 am
Shikarta wrote:SD_Film Artists wrote:
I'm from Norfolk and proud of it, but I still fly the union jack.
How anyone can be 'proud' of wherever they arbitrarily happened to be born, I'll never understand. Nevertheless I suppose the reason the English are so quick to adopt a British identity is because English and British culture are largely synonymous, which forms part of what I was trying to explain above.
England has also always been the 'centre' of the Union, politically, culturally and geographically, so it makes sense that those cultures at the periphery should be less inclined to join in.
by H-Alba » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:31 am
Angleter wrote:H-Alba wrote:
I was born in Scotland, that is the nation and country I was born in. I do not like the culture of the Lowlands, nor do I "appreciate it". All I can do is say the country I was born in. There are Americans who are not proud to be American, does this mean they can't call themselves americans? I'm Scottish, because it's the country I was born in, but I'm proud of the Highland Culture I was raised in.
But by that definition, you're also British, since the Union has yet to be dissolved. Would you favour an independent Highlands?
by Vestr-Norig » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:32 am
Angleter wrote:Vestr-Norig wrote:
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 1941-44.
Norway: the Vikings?
Iceland: Granted, but they did establish Vinland, and what would've happened to them had it survived is up for debate.
Switzerland: Switzerland grew in number of cantons throughout the medieval era, but admittedly not too often by force.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Atrito, DeMoNiC sAtAn, Dimetrodon Empire, Grinning Dragon, Hidrandia, Page, Raskana, Statesburg, The Holy Therns, Untecna, Vassenor
Advertisement