Manifest Destiny

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Plan - d seems to think the British empire was all cuddle and nice. Henry the eight , Cromwell they were really good at murder,and stealing lands and property.Bombing the afgan tribes in the twenties with poision gas if they steped out of line,Might is always right for imperialists.American , British or Belgian they all use the" we are superiour to these natives " excuse.
 
Has any one out there seen a film about the Saint Patricios ( forgive the spelling ).The Irish and Germans who deserted the american army to fight for mexico .Is it any good !I think it was called ' One mans hero '.
 
stonewall23 said:
Has any one out there seen a film about the Saint Patricios ( forgive the spelling ).The Irish and Germans who deserted the american army to fight for mexico .Is it any good !I think it was called ' One mans hero '.
Click to expand...

Never saw it... Mexico had barely settled any of Texas, and as a result enticed American settlers by offering them land for 12.5 cents an acre. So many Americans took them up on their offer that they then shut down the operation, and didn't allow any more americans as they outnumbered the Mexican population. The majority of the Americans that went to texas were southerners - they don't even like the US Federal gov't, and they sure as hell weren't going to listen to any mexican gov't. Not to mention, many of the mexican provinces were in turmoil as their federal gov't was in transition and chaotic.
 
On the contrary, stonewall, I think Britain was the greatest military power in the world at it's height. And military was gained through violence. You should be happy, however, that Britain was more caring than countries like Spain. Because if we were like them, we would have slaughtered you all.
 
Caring .It is astonishing How ignorant The British are about the empire. History is written by the winners,The behaviour of the british forces throughout the empire would be classed as war criminals ,ethnic cleansing in Ireland ( plantashion of ulster ),murder of peacefull demonstrators in India.The black and tans Are regarded as highly by us as the s.s are by the poles.Do not get me wrong, the world has a lot to thank individual brits for.The British empire brought oppression and tyranny to the countries they conquered exactly like the rest of the worlds empire builders.
 
In comparison to today's society, the British Empire was a tyrannical. But unfortunately for your ego and hatred of Great Britain - the British Empire wasn't built in the 20th Century. In the glory days of the English the world didn't even think of human rights, we still lived off the old Greek and Roman ideals that the winner will always have the right to enforce whatever he wishes upon the vanquished.

You can't compare the English Empire to today's society. Be realistic and compare to it to Spains. They wiped out entire civilisations. At least Indians still exist, and the Irish still exist.

It's amazing how all the LOSERs whine about losing.
 
My ego and hatred of britian !!!!!!!!! Where the hell did you get that from ? I have no personal hatred of britian .I'm talking of history .There was no " glory " in what the empire did to countless weaker peoples around the globe.It is true that the rules of war have changed over the years but as I said The black and tans were in the twentieth century. You think we should be gratefull to the empire for killing millions when they could have killed us all....Gee Thanks. Yes it is strange how the victims of violence keep talking about it. You still think the British empire did their victims a favour .Empires are built on greed Spanish . British ,American or Belgian empires are all the same bully attacking the weak.
 
plan_D said:
On the contrary, stonewall, I think Britain was the greatest military power in the world at it's height. And military was gained through violence. You should be happy, however, that Britain was more caring than countries like Spain. Because if we were like them, we would have slaughtered you all.
Click to expand...

Britain had to be... it would have bought itself many many more and stronger rebellions if they were that rash w/ their colonies. Look at how petty the the issues of the American revolution were...
 
You are not talking history, seriously, stonewall. You are comparing the British Empire to modern day ideology that everyone is equal. If you compare the British Empire to those of the earlier empires, you would find it's more leniant on it's conquests.

If the British Empire was anything like that of the Romans, Greeks or Mongols the world would have been slaughtered or enslaved. At least, the British Empire developed a lot of the areas it conquered. Still much to the distaste of the inhabitants.

You seem to be forgetting, stonewall, that a unified empire has always been the stepping stone for global development. Without the British Empire the world wouldn't have many technologies it does today. Without the wealth and power of the Empire, the industrial revolution may never have happened.

Britain didn't have to be caring at all. We could have just slaughtered whole populations into extinction like the Spanish did to the Aztecs. Or enslave the world like the Romans did. Or even do what the Mongolians did and flatten cities and kill all the inhabitants.
 
Funny how most of the countries that emerged from the British empire are now among the best run, most prosperous and are hardly the failed states that emerged from the French and Dutch colonial systems.
 
Forgive me but you ,Plan d, are doing exactly what you accuse me of. You are judging the british empire with the romans ,greeks or mongols. The british did slaughter and enslave. The empire did put entire cities to the sword ,men ,women and children .Cromwell was very fond of doing it here .They stole the land and wealth of countries they conquered and this did finance the industrial revolution which created wealth for the industrialists not for the irish ,indian ,south african or indeed the ordinary british people.The british empire allowed a million irish starve while they imported food from ireland to feed the ever growing populations in the cities which housed the labour force for the industrial revolution. It's true the british organised their empire better and most countries that emerged from the empire are amongst the most prosperous and best run.The civil service traditions that they left did help the emerging nations ,you can not say that if india , ireland or any of the nations remained independant they would have not become well run and prosperous.
You still insist on saying the british empire was nicer ,cuddlier than any other empire thats like saying " I'm a nicer mugger than anyone else because after I hit you on the head with a big stick and then robbed you at least after I help you in to the ambulance. Because I care. "
I am not anti- British. I have an aunty who is british . Seriously ,Britian has given the world a lot of good things but their empire was built on a hunger for power ,land and wealth.It was achivied by the subjagation of weaker nations just like any other empire.They kepted the empire for so long because of military might, when that might began to weaken they lost their grip on on control of the empire.A prime example is the suez crisis. The British ,French and Isrealis organisied an attack on an independant Egypt because they could not push Nasser around.A land grab ,just like the good old days. The Americans told them to withdraw and they complied.There was a new big boy on the block.America was the one who called the shots now.
 
plan_D said:
Britain didn't have to be caring at all. We could have just slaughtered whole populations into extinction like the Spanish did to the Aztecs. Or enslave the world like the Romans did. Or even do what the Mongolians did and flatten cities and kill all the inhabitants.
Click to expand...

I'll still contend that Britain understood that a "kinder, more gentle" approach to managing her Empire would bring dividends in terms of trade, but also the fact that it would mean less animosity and fewer rebellions. Sure, they could've taken a page out of the old extermination playbook, but it would likely have bought them more revolutions than they could have handled... It was definitely in their interests to be a more benevelont master.
 
I assume we will all have to agree to disagree. But I love a goog arguement , If you want to continue I am more than happy to.But please understand I have no personal anomosity to you plan d,the British or anyone else.
 
The only real failed states of the British Empire, syscom, seem to be in Africa. And even those are doing better, or were doing better, than the others e.g South Africa and Zimbabwae (Rhodesia).

Since the British Empire covered a large time span it's hard to hold to one world of thought. I am not disagreeing that the British Empire existed to help others, of course the British Empire was there to feed the wealth of Great Britain.
But the British Empire aimed to develop the nations it ran, which isn't unlike the Roman Empire. Sure, the British Empire enslaved a whole race at the start of it's expansion into Africa but it was the first super-power to abolish slavery.
I disagree with your idea that the industrial revolution did not aid the nations the British controlled. My prime example always is the railway, or even to add we can mention the telegram. The railroads in Ireland, India and Africa were designed and produced by Great Britain. Without British rule the railway wouldn't have been in those nations for decades, or even centuries.

I do have to say that those nations would not have been as prosperous. Without British encouragement and development to create surplus socities in the nations it controlled, albeit for it's own wealth, the nations generated healthy trade with their surplus after Britain left. In Africa, Britain opened up the mines in gold, silver and diamond again for it's own wealth but without Britain they'd have never been discovered. And people say Europe bled Africa dry, there's still millions upon millions of tons of rare natural resources in that continent.

I will still say the British Empire was more LENIANT and understanding of its subjects. As mkloby says they were more benevolent to increase trade and reduce uprising. The actual plan of the British Empire was to create a massive trading network with Britain at it's helm.
If you consider empires muggers of the world, Britain more likely said "...work for us, or we'll kill you" - rather than "...give me all your money." To say that Britain held it's empire together on military might alone is foolish, I'm sorry to say.

Great Britain throughout its history has been over-stretched. Several points during the Revolution War the whole Empire could have kicked off and it would have crumbled. But instead, the British Empire seemed to gladly march under the Union Jack in times of trouble. Seriously, do you think Britain could have forced the Indians to fight for them in World War I? No way, but the Indians did anyway. Same in World War II, Britian couldn't have forced them to fight in Europe.

The Suez Crisis was not a land grab, Great Britain built and funded the Suez Canal. The U.S did exactly the same in Panama. One thing right though is that the U.S was the new super-power.

mkloby; I've passed my aerodynamics unit. But I'm continuing to get merits and maybe distinctions. I'll send you my assignment on the basics of transonic flight if you want.
 
I agree that railways and other things would not have reached Ireland and India ect as quickly as they did without the British empire .But to say that without Britian that the natural resources of africa would never have been discovered is ,in my opinion , rediculous.You can argue about time scales but to say never !!! Europe did bleed Africa dry.They took vast amounts of resource which was not theirs. Its nice of the empire to leave something for the natives or at least for the Weastern companies who operated the mines (in the 50's / 60's )and often destablised the new countries eg; Congo. to secure the resources for commercial explotation.You think " work for us or we kill you " ( your words ) is the british empire being leniant and understanding . They did hold the empire together by military force.Every time the natives ,Irish , Indian ,whoever rebelled the first thing the british did was send more troops .Why ? to give them a holiday , no, to by force subdue the rebellion. During the world wars countries did help Britian ' The mother country '.But they also did it to aid small nations who were attacked by Germany ( how ironic ).Ireland never had conscription in either war but hundreds of thousands of nationalist joined the army to fight in w.w 1 in the hope of home rule / indepandance at the end of the war .Again in w.w 2 ,over a hundred thousand Irish men and women fought for Britian.Or at least they fought against the nazi 's . Over 7,000 irish soldiers deserted the Irish army to join the British army in w.w 2 . They did this not out of love of the British empire but because it was a good cause and the right thing to do.I can not speak for other nations,but I think some fought for ' motherland ' and others because of other reasons. Britian and America invaded indepandent countries ,which they could no longer control.Nasser was a patriot and Norrieaga ( forgive the spelling ) was a drug pushing scum.Both were invaded to protect the economic / trade corridors.Impirialism at its best. Oh by the way congradulations on passing your exam.
 
I don't see how the African population would have been able to achieve deep mining that was capable of extracting the natural resources in the continent that provide a lot of it's 'wealth' today.

It's true that Britain held the Empire together with military force, but we needed to be more leniant than other empires to avoid many rebellions. You seem to be misunderstanding, stonewall, I am not denying Britain's military might. To deny that would be foolish because we held the greatest empire in history, and it wasn't given to us.

The Indians that joined in the RAF in Battle of Britain were there to aid Britain, and Britain directly. You seem to think I'm saying Britain was nice, when I'm saying we were nicer than other empires like Spain. Plus while empires are there to conquer lands, they've existed throughout time and have led to the development of mankind as a whole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back