8 ms·
Man, what happened to the people that created the British Empire? The one that the sun never set over? Losing Australia and India and Canada, sure, they're over
by freehunter 10y ago
Man, what happened to the people that created the British Empire? The one that the sun never set over? Losing Australia and India and Canada, sure, they're overseas, hard to manage, and the cultures are (in some cases) very different. But England and Scotland? Find me an older partnership than that one (yes, I know it hasn't always been friendly, but still). And for some reason, Brits are content to throw all of it away and shrink back inside their turtle shell.
As an American, I love watching Top Gear and feeling their nostalgia for great British cars, and for cars made in someone's shed with panels pounded by hand over wooden molds... are there any actual British car companies left from those days? Jaguar and Land Rover are owned by the Indians, Mini is owned by the Germans, MG is owned by the Chinese.
Is this what Great Britain is now? Just the bottom half of a tiny island in the North Sea? And people are content with this? I understand empires rise and fall but it's still kind of sad to watch. A nation that once owned the entire world, now they're closing their borders because they're afraid of the big scary world outside.
Glad to see Scotland isn't putting up with it.
- X86BSD 10y agoConquered lands are not exactly partnerships.
- freehunter 10y agoThere are no Scots sitting in Parliament? There have never been any Scottish kings that ruled the British isles?
- graeme 10y agoI don't think it was conquest. King James VI of Scotland inherited the English throne in 1606. Then, in 1707, after the ruinous failure of the Darien scheme bankrupted Scotland, both political establishments supported the act of Union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707#Scottish_perspective https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707#Scottish_pe...
- teh_klev 10y agoDarien might have been a mess, but there's far more to the story than just that. England was an actively hostile suitor to Scotland: http://wingsoverscotland.com/weekend-essay-skintland-britnat-mythology-and-the-darien-scheme/ http://wingsoverscotland.com/weekend-essay-skintland-britnat...
- graeme 10y agoI didn't meant to suggest it was amicable. Or even popularly supported on the Scottish side (it wasn't). I just meant it didn't happen due to a war of conquest.
- krapp 10y ago>Man, what happened to the people that created the British Empire? They died, and their racist, slavemaking, mass-murdering Imperial ideals died with them, and good riddance to all of it.
- lacampbell 10y agoThe British empire ended slavey in my country.
- dragonwriter 10y agoBut not "the people that founded the British Empire". And, if it's like most of the places where the Empire ended it, it was only after generations of using it for their own benefit.
- iamshs 10y agoAnd hence the British slavery is acceptable.
- lacampbell 10y agoI neither said nor implied that. If that's your own opinion, make it clear because it's not mine.
- krapp 10y agoAnd they sold slaves to my country, what's your point?
- lacampbell 10y agoMy point was it's ignorant to generalise an entire civilisation like that - one that popularised and enforced abolition world wide. Can you name a major civilisation that was not trading, holding or capturing slaves during the time period the British empire was selling slaves to your country?
- williamgb 10y agoPutting aside your condescending commentary, and disregarding for the time being your hysterical proclamations of closed borders, pray tell... What is it you feel my non-EU wife and I, both living in Edinburgh, are putting up with (or not, as you say)?
- freehunter 10y agoHow great did Britain become due to the influx of foreign cultures? Would people eat Tikka Masala without Brits learning that style of cooking from the Indians? And would The Beatles have been what they were if they never visited India? Going back to Top Gear, like a quarter of the stuff they do is because of open borders between the UK and the EU. Sailing across the English Channel? Racing through the chunnel? When they visit the US they have to deal with visas and law enforcement and the threat of being deported just because they're foreigners. I'm not even talking specifically about the EU, the glory days of the British car industry was pre-EU. But the UK seems like it used to be a land of big goals, populated by dreamers who would get things done, impossible things. And the UK today, shrinking back from the rest of the world, stands as a stark contrast to the nation that sailed across the seas and established the most successful colonies and invented the car and invented the computer and owned property on every continent. I don't know what you and your wife are experiencing in Scotland, I've never been there. But as an outsider looking in, the Britain that exists today seems a lot more afraid of the world than the Britain I learned about in history class. You might think it's condescending or hysterical, but remember that the UK literally owned land on every continent, in Asia and Africa and North America and South America and Antarctica and Europe and Australia. And now they're facing down the prospect of losing Scotland. I'm sure some people called the fall of the Western Roman Empire "condescending and hysterical" too.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> Man, what happened to the people that created the British Empire? They died. Like, a long time ago. > Is this what Great Britain is now? Just the bottom half of a tiny island in the North Sea? No, Great Britain is, and always has been, the island itself, whether or not it happens to be politically unified (which, most of the time that name has been around, it hasn't.) It comes from the French name (Grand-Bretagne) which distinguishes the island from Brittany (Bretagne) in France.
- ralfd 10y agoOther way around. Bretagne in France was named after (celtic) britonic settlers from Great Britain who fled the invading (germanic) anglo-saxons. The "Great" denotes that the Island is larger than Ireland (which is "little" Britain). Wikipedia: > The Greco-Egyptian scientist Ptolemy referred to the larger island as great Britain (μεγάλης Βρεττανίας - megális Brettanias) and to Ireland as little Britain (μικρής Βρεττανίας - mikris Brettanias)
- justin66 10y ago> Find me an older partnership than that one (yes, I know it hasn't always been friendly, but still). If you want to characterize the time since the Acts of Union as a pure partnership and just ignore the itsy-bitsy flare-ups like the Jacobite rebellion and the Battle of Culloden (okee dokee) you're only talking three hundred years. It's not such a long time.
- freehunter 10y agoI'm not sure what the Jacobite rebellion of Battle of Culloden are off the top of my head, those aren't taught in history classes in America, but I've always been taught starting from James I in 1603 when the same king ruled the two lands. Being a partnership doesn't require being one combined country, having the same head of state seems like pretty close relations. But if unsuccessful civil wars are allowed to disrupt the unity of a nation, hell, America has only been a country for like 150 years, not 250. The American Civil War was a lot bloodier than the Battle of Culloden.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> I'm not sure what the Jacobite rebellion of Battle of Culloden are off the top of my head, those aren't taught in history classes in America You are overgeneralizing, and in any case, that's not an excuse when the examples are pointed out and Wikipedia (for starters) exists.
- freehunter 10y agoI absolutely love that you jumped at that first sentence and had to criticize me without even reading the rest of my post. Because I went on to talk about it after I read the Wikipedia article. Go back and finish reading.
- goodcanadian 10y agoIf sharing the same head of state is the criteria, then Canada and Australia (and several others) are still in a partnership with the United Kingdom. :P
- k-mcgrady 10y agoEasy to romanticise it and forget exactly how the empire came to be - war, theft, violence, slavery, murder. Maybe it's breaking up because the tactics that put it together are no-longer acceptable.
- CalChris 10y agoThat's no different from any other empire.
- pessimizer 10y agoI didn't notice k-mcgrady suggesting that we romanticize any other empire, either.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> But England and Scotland? Find me an older partnership than that one The Co-Principality of Andorra. Sure, there was a hiccup in 1812-1813, but it's hardly like the England-Scotland "partnership" hasn't had hiccups, and 789 years beats 310 years quite handily.
- hythloday 10y agoEven closer to home is the England/Portugal alliance, which started in 1373 and has run continuously since then.
- freehunter 10y agoWell, you've got me there. Good call.
- swordee 10y agoA very odd comment. England and Scotland are not a partnership and have spent much of their histories at war with each other. Scotland formed the UK with England because they were bankrupt. And the UK are not "closing their borders because they're scared of the outside world". They've decided to leave a trading union that doesn't allow them to control their borders, in which no elected person can introduce new legislation, and in which they are not allowed to negotiate their own trade deals. You seem very much to have "bought the hype" here.
- eyko 10y ago> and in which they are not allowed to negotiate their own trade deals. And that is a bad thing how exactly? What trade deals does the EU lack that the UK would've negotiated, had we been free to? There are obvious reasons why the EU negotiates as a block (the nature of the single market), and why the UK cannot negotiate trade deals with third parties until it exits the bloc - for example, it's unknown if the UK will have access to the single market after leaving the bloc, and any trade deals with (for example) the US or China could be incompatible until the terms are clear.
- matthewmacleod 10y agoEngland and Scotland (as well as Wales and Northern Ireland) are very clearly a partnership. There is significant imbalance therein, but that doesn't render it nonexistent. And the UK is very much flapping about with little idea of what it is doing and why. Immigration does seem to be the biggest concern - but there is little evidence as to why it is the biggest concern. If anything, I'd suggest that Brexit is the result of the same phenomenon that elected Trump - a general dissatisfaction with the state of governance and a lack of options with which to deal with it. People are understandably frustrated and want to effect some change; it's easy to believe promises made to this effect.
- swordee 10y agoIs it possible that you can prove literally anything there that you have said?
- lsllc 10y agoThe spirit & ingenuity is still there: http://www.colinfurze.com http://www.colinfurze.com