2 ms·

Thanks for filling in some of the details. I know it's more complex than what I wrote, but I'm not paid by the word here. :) > it's worth noting that the UK ha

Thanks for filling in some of the details. I know it's more complex than what I wrote, but I'm not paid by the word here. :) > it's worth noting that the UK has not, in living memory, attempted to subjugate all of Europe under its ruthless mass-murdering rule I agree with this point but would like to add a tangential one: The UK didn't do that in Europe, but they did it many other places around the world, as did other world powers. Why is murderous oppression acceptable in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe but not in Poland or England?

parenthephobia 11y ago
Well of course it isn't. :) Amongst people who think it is, there are basically two reasons: 1. Africa is where brown people live. 2. We (in the UK) tend to have a romantic rose-tinted view of how the British Empire treated its colonies. We imagine that our rule was a net positive for the countries we occupied, bringing civilization to primitive tribes. One of the effects of losing the war is that the German people weren't allowed to forgot the atrocities of Nazi Germany. We, on the other hand, were allowed to forget our own atrocities.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > We imagine that our rule was a net positive for the countries we occupied Just adding to your excellent points: The words net positive are used to justify almost every attrocity in history, including Hitler, Stalin, Mao ... torture by the US government (not comparable to those three but the same rationale) ... etc. etc. You have to break a few eggs to make an omlette, as they say.