5 ms·

> An empire that was built on theft and oppression Not that it makes it any better, but isn't that what all empires are built on? A more ethical empire wouldn'

> An empire that was built on theft and oppression Not that it makes it any better, but isn't that what all empires are built on? A more ethical empire wouldn't be an empire at all. It'd be something more akin to the USA, the EU, or on a smaller scale the UK itself.

dTal 4y ago
The UK itself is not an "ethical empire", it is the English empire. England's satellite states are second-class, and were annexed coercively if not violently. All of them harbor grudges about it, and all of them have robust political factions which advocate leaving the UK.
- fidgewidge 4y ago
  Yes all of Scotland harbors a grudge against the English, that's why they voted to remain a part of the UK when given their "once in a generation" chance to do so. And yes they're totally second class. That's why they have their own parliaments whereas England doesn't.
  - dTal 4y ago
    Should I have said "every one of them"? I didn't mean to imply that every citizen personally harbors a grudge. That would be silly! But they did have a referendum, and "remain" barely won. Yes, the fact they have their own parliaments, while "England does not", does indeed demonstrate that they are second class. Because the reason England "doesn't have a parliament" is that when Scotland "joined", the English parliament was simply renamed into "The Parliament of Great Britain", without changing anything else. They even kept the same MPs - didn't even hold an election! It was all for show, a minimal mask of fairness for dissolving the Scottish parliament. It resulted in riots and martial law. This, by the way, was the closest England ever came to "consensually" adding a member. Wales at this point in time was a straight-up English territory. It didn't even get a parliament until 1999, at the same time Scotland was allowed to reform theirs. And would you like to talk about Northern Ireland?
    - fidgewidge 4y ago
      You're referring to the way things were in the past, whilst making claims about the present day. Empires don't generally give parts of themselves fair and free referendums on whether to stay and then win, do they?
      - dTal 4y ago
        Tell me then, why do you think England is unique among the constituent countries of the United Kingdom in not having "its own" parliament? Is it because it's the least important member, subservient to the others?
        fidgewidge 4y ago
        History, and the way devolution was set up by Blair. He wanted Scotland to have more power locally because it's a relatively left wing place that voted Labour at the time, and didn't want England to have more local power because that would have hurt Labour electorally.
cloutchaser 4y ago
[flagged]
- dTal 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - zpeti 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - parthdesai 4y ago
      Yeah, but we are talking about India under british empire. Not Rwanda and Haiti. Since you're so oblivious of what the british empire did, here's a 8 minute mini speech of things British empire did in India. India wasn't some poor country, it was actually one of the richest countries in the world before brits came along and stole everything. This was my entire point in the initial post, it's both hilarious and a bit sad how people are so unaware what the british empire did in India. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4
      - zpeti 4y ago
        Stealing is a bit different to killing 30m Eastern Europeans, starving them to the point of cannibalism etc, and also killing 30m of your own people. That’s my point. And that’s my family’s experience.
        dTal 4y ago
        They did cause famine starving tens of millions of people. Deliberately. Among a great many other violent atrocities. Please read/watch the resources you have been given.
    - dTal 4y ago
      Even were we to accept that, the whatabout-ism is a shockingly poor taste response to someone with a personal connection to real oppression, and I don't even have words for someone labeling people "woke oppression crusaders" for pointing out that the UK committed crimes against humanity on a vast scale resulting in tens of millions of deaths.
4ggr0 4y ago
EDIT: probably got that wrong, I'll see when you answer :) > A more ethical empire wouldn't be an empire at all. It'd be something more akin to the USA Are you suggesting that the US behaves ethically? Snowden, Assange, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, BLM, Guantanamo, ... Or the way the native population was treated. (theft and oppression)

dTal 4y ago

The UK itself is not an "ethical empire", it is the English empire. England's satellite states are second-class, and were annexed coercively if not violently. All of them harbor grudges about it, and all of them have robust political factions which advocate leaving the UK.

fidgewidge 4y ago
Yes all of Scotland harbors a grudge against the English, that's why they voted to remain a part of the UK when given their "once in a generation" chance to do so. And yes they're totally second class. That's why they have their own parliaments whereas England doesn't.
- dTal 4y ago
  Should I have said "every one of them"? I didn't mean to imply that every citizen personally harbors a grudge. That would be silly! But they did have a referendum, and "remain" barely won. Yes, the fact they have their own parliaments, while "England does not", does indeed demonstrate that they are second class. Because the reason England "doesn't have a parliament" is that when Scotland "joined", the English parliament was simply renamed into "The Parliament of Great Britain", without changing anything else. They even kept the same MPs - didn't even hold an election! It was all for show, a minimal mask of fairness for dissolving the Scottish parliament. It resulted in riots and martial law. This, by the way, was the closest England ever came to "consensually" adding a member. Wales at this point in time was a straight-up English territory. It didn't even get a parliament until 1999, at the same time Scotland was allowed to reform theirs. And would you like to talk about Northern Ireland?
  - fidgewidge 4y ago
    You're referring to the way things were in the past, whilst making claims about the present day. Empires don't generally give parts of themselves fair and free referendums on whether to stay and then win, do they?
    - dTal 4y ago
      Tell me then, why do you think England is unique among the constituent countries of the United Kingdom in not having "its own" parliament? Is it because it's the least important member, subservient to the others?
      - fidgewidge 4y ago
        History, and the way devolution was set up by Blair. He wanted Scotland to have more power locally because it's a relatively left wing place that voted Labour at the time, and didn't want England to have more local power because that would have hurt Labour electorally.

cloutchaser 4y ago

[flagged]

dTal 4y ago
[flagged]
- zpeti 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - parthdesai 4y ago
    Yeah, but we are talking about India under british empire. Not Rwanda and Haiti. Since you're so oblivious of what the british empire did, here's a 8 minute mini speech of things British empire did in India. India wasn't some poor country, it was actually one of the richest countries in the world before brits came along and stole everything. This was my entire point in the initial post, it's both hilarious and a bit sad how people are so unaware what the british empire did in India. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4
    - zpeti 4y ago
      Stealing is a bit different to killing 30m Eastern Europeans, starving them to the point of cannibalism etc, and also killing 30m of your own people. That’s my point. And that’s my family’s experience.
      - dTal 4y ago
        They did cause famine starving tens of millions of people. Deliberately. Among a great many other violent atrocities. Please read/watch the resources you have been given.
  - dTal 4y ago
    Even were we to accept that, the whatabout-ism is a shockingly poor taste response to someone with a personal connection to real oppression, and I don't even have words for someone labeling people "woke oppression crusaders" for pointing out that the UK committed crimes against humanity on a vast scale resulting in tens of millions of deaths.

4ggr0 4y ago

EDIT: probably got that wrong, I'll see when you answer :) > A more ethical empire wouldn't be an empire at all. It'd be something more akin to the USA Are you suggesting that the US behaves ethically? Snowden, Assange, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, BLM, Guantanamo, ... Or the way the native population was treated. (theft and oppression)