May's speech

[Whorty]

Nah I'll just tell the truth and add references, being a nobrainer you will deny it all as piffle.


So as an opening - Oh do feck off you moronic revisionist arshole.

If you knew any history you would realise all major nations had empires from Elizabethan to modern times. Trust me if you want a really brutal empire from those times look at the Spanish,Belgians & the French, we were rank amateurs in mistreating the natives.

The occupation in India started as a trading relationship and managed to slow the warring between disparate Mughal Emporors , a war that was brutal and had been happening for centuries .

Category:Battles involving the Mughal Empire - Wikipedia

The presence of East India Company armies in India were sometimes to prevent the traders being attacked by the locals not aligned to those we were trading with, but mainly French, Belgians & Italians interfering in trade or overthrowing the local rulers.

We did eventually take over India by force when the internecine wars among the Natives started to really affect trade and they started to seriously attack British traders & soldiers under a quite understandable revolt. We just then tried to keep a lid on it until we handed back to the Indians who as expected pursued a religious war that is raw even now.

East India Company (disambiguation) - Wikipedia

note there were multiple trading nations in India.

East India Company - Wikipedia



We have helped India both during the Empire (it would have been centuries of civil war as it had been for centuries before) and post India with foreign aid and preferential treatment in the commonwealth.

Purchasing slaves was quite legal at the time (shockingly research shows 90% of slaves were purchased from their African brothers) and using them was widespread. Literally everyone was at it and had been since the dawn of time.

The British started abolition and lost British lives enforcing it against other future EU members.

Chasing Freedom: the Royal Navy and the suppression of the transatlantic slave trade, an exhibition review


Again we have sent aid in the billions but their rulers still sell their brothers for new BMWs.


We did not try to eradicate entire races in Gas chambers or shoot thousands of prisoners in secluded woodland in the 20th Century. However in most of Europe many countries officially lent a hand to the Germans.

Final Solution - Wikipedia

https://eserve.org.uk/tmc/occupied/final.htm

We did not try to invade the whole of Europe to try to impose our insane agenda so I put us ahead of the Italians, Spanish, French & Germans.


I am struggling to see what the British have to be ashamed about, they seem to have either been on trend or ahead of the curve compared to our neighbours on social responsibility. We have been trying to fix the world ever since but some parts of the world just don't want to be fixed.

Africa has sold its riches to China in the last few decades. In a centuries time will we hear complaints about how China stole from them?

You really are a prize muppet.

I never said we, Britain, are the only ones who treated indigenous people's badly. I'm well aware that the Dutch, Spanish, French, Portuguese are all as bad when it comes to how badly the African and Asian nations have been treated.

Tell me, which nation came up with the idea of concentration camps? Have a read how we used these to subdue others and how the germans learnt from this.

Re India .... yes the East India was a trading company, but it also had an army more powerful than that of Britain. And it used this army to force other countries to trade with us (we didn't want to lose out on the wealth that the Dutch were making and we wanted to pull trade away from Amsterdam). They did a lot of piracy too, but hey ho, I guess this is OK in your eyes.

From your quote "We did eventually take over India by force when the internecine wars among the Natives started to really affect trade and they started to seriously attack British traders" - so you think it would be OK for the EU to take the UK by force now if we impact their trade? Wouldn't be that different to what The Company men did. Do you condone that when we do it, yet it wouldn't be ok to have others do it to us?

I understand my history and have read a lot around the Company (I used to work in Lloyd's of London so knowing the history of that establishment was an interest). I don't, and can't, apologise for what our ancestors did but I can make sure we don't pretend it didn't happen or blame the locals for the atrocities our country made them suffer.

Pillock

[vetran]

more poorly researched gibberish biased against the British

Stupidity in famine is hardly the equivalent of filling gas chambers.

Putting Boer civilians in concentration camps (just like most armies do in occupied territories today, they just call them refugee camps) is not the same as a bullet in the back of the neck. The massively negative view of concentration camps comes from Germany where 90% + would be exterminated.

[vetran]

You really are a prize muppet.

I never said we, Britain, are the only ones who treated indigenous people's badly. I'm well aware that the Dutch, Spanish, French, Portuguese are all as bad when it comes to how badly the African and Asian nations have been treated.

Tell me, which nation came up with the idea of concentration camps? Have a read how we used these to subdue others and how the germans learnt from this.

Re India .... yes the East India was a trading company, but it also had an army more powerful than that of Britain. And it used this army to force other countries to trade with us (we didn't want to lose out on the wealth that the Dutch were making and we wanted to pull trade away from Amsterdam). They did a lot of piracy too, but hey ho, I guess this is OK in your eyes.

From your quote "We did eventually take over India by force when the internecine wars among the Natives started to really affect trade and they started to seriously attack British traders" - so you think it would be OK for the EU to take the UK by force now if we impact their trade? Wouldn't be that different to what The Company men did. Do you condone that when we do it, yet it wouldn't be ok to have others do it to us?

I understand my history and have read a lot around the Company (I used to work in Lloyd's of London so knowing the history of that establishment was an interest). I don't, and can't, apologise for what our ancestors did but I can make sure we don't pretend it didn't happen or blame the locals for the atrocities our country made them suffer.

Pillock

Wrong

Concentration camp - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first modern concentration camps in the United States were created in 1838.

So not the Boer war. The British may have invented the name but that is it.

What is a Concentration Camp? - History


Yes the East India company had soldiers, as pointed out the other European countries were in India and other Muhgals were attacking the puppet Rulers the British were trading with. If you know the history of it you will understand the army was to quell opposition from other European powers whether directly or via puppet rulers of other European countries. Frequently it fought alongside Indian forces (not just composed of them).

Calcutta was the turning point when the British were attacked significantly by Indian forces.

Siege of Calcutta - Wikipedia

As you can see the causes were not British aggressive Imperialism.

Category:Sieges involving the British East India Company - Wikipedia

We shouldn't have been there but it is universally understood the reason we were there was trade and our initial trading partners were very willing despite centuries of war in India.

[sasguru]

Stupidity in famine is hardly the equivalent of filling gas chambers.

.

Timeline of major famines in India during British rule - Wikipedia

Hardly just stupidity is it, it happened so many times

30 million plus dead - but it wasn't important because India was a place to be exploited to the nth degree.

You do need to educate yourself - that involves not ignoring evidence that conflicts with your beliefs.

The Bengal Famine: How the British engineered the worst genocide in human history for profit

"Under the Mughal rule, peasants were required to pay a tribute of 10-15 percent of their cash harvest. This ensured a comfortable treasury for the rulers and a wide net of safety for the peasants in case the weather did not hold for future harvests. In 1765, the Treaty of Allahabad was signed and the East India Company took over the task of collecting the tributes from the then Mughal emperor Shah Alam II. Overnight the tributes, the British insisted on calling them tributes and not taxes for reasons of suppressing rebellion, increased to 50 percent"

[vetran]

Timeline of major famines in India during British rule - Wikipedia

Hardly just stupidity is it, it happened so many times

30 million plus dead - but it wasn't important because India was a place to be exploited to the nth degree.

You do need to educate yourself - that involves not ignoring evidence that conflicts with your beliefs.

The Bengal Famine: How the British engineered the worst genocide in human history for profit

"Under the Mughal rule, peasants were required to pay a tribute of 10-15 percent of their cash harvest. This ensured a comfortable treasury for the rulers and a wide net of safety for the peasants in case the weather did not hold for future harvests. In 1765, the Treaty of Allahabad was signed and the East India Company took over the task of collecting the tributes from the then Mughal emperor Shah Alam II. Overnight the tributes, the British insisted on calling them tributes and not taxes for reasons of suppressing rebellion, increased to 50 percent"

OK so your source is a journalist whose piece is clearly politically motivated, mine is a Professor of history at LSE.

Independence Day, it is worthwhile to remember that the riches of the West were built on the graves of the East. While we honour our brave freedom fighters (as we should),

http://www.lse.ac.uk/Economic-Histor...2016/WP243.pdf

From his conclusion -

Were Indian famines natural or manmade? ‘Manmade,’ insofar as this means thatfamines were an outcome of colonial politics, is an unconvincing theory because it fails toexplain the rarity of famines during late colonial rule and presumes that the capacity of thestate to mitigate famines was limited only by its own intention to act.

Who am I to argue with an expert?

[Whorty]

Wrong

Concentration camp - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So not the Boer war. The British may have invented the name but that is it.

What is a Concentration Camp? - History


Yes the East India company had soldiers, as pointed out the other European countries were in India and other Muhgals were attacking the puppet Rulers the British were trading with. If you know the history of it you will understand the army was to quell opposition from other European powers whether directly or via puppet rulers of other European countries. Frequently it fought alongside Indian forces (not just composed of them).

Calcutta was the turning point when the British were attacked significantly by Indian forces.

Siege of Calcutta - Wikipedia

As you can see the causes were not British aggressive Imperialism.

Category:Sieges involving the British East India Company - Wikipedia

We shouldn't have been there but it is universally understood the reason we were there was trade and our initial trading partners were very willing despite centuries of war in India.

So you would find it OK if the EU placed an armed force on our shores to protect their trade with the UK? Or is it only OK when it's a British army on foreign soil?

[Zigenare]

So you would find it OK if the EU placed an armed force on our shores to protect their trade with the UK? Or is it only OK when it's a British army on foreign soil?

I think the Argies tried that one. Look where it got those *******!

[sasguru]

OK so your source is a journalist whose piece is clearly politically motivated, mine is a Professor of history at LSE.




http://www.lse.ac.uk/Economic-Histor...2016/WP243.pdf

From his conclusion -



Who am I to argue with an expert?

In academic discourse one doesn't just produce a single academic out of a hat who agrees with one's views.
It's normal to do a literature review and see what the balance of evidence is.

2 things about the paper:

1. It refers to 19th century famines ONLY: The authors says: " I stress a third factor, knowledge, and suggest that limited information and knowledge constrained state capacity to act
during the nineteenth century famines"
2. He's mainly arguing agaisnt the ideas of Nobel prizewinner Amartya Sen and master of Trinity Collge, Cambridge who argued for a political dimension to Indian famines. Sen won a Nobel prize for his work on famines so would be considered the greater expert.

None of this covers the Bengal famine of 1942-1944 which killed between 1-5 million (the exact figure is disputed, most academics agree on 3 million).
No one argues that there was any lack of knowledge while it was happening - it was extensively reported on at the time.

2 acknowledged academic experts of famine, Amartya Sen and Cormac O'grada, while diasgreeing on the root cause of the Bengal famine agree that British policy was to ignore the results of the famine.

http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/wp10_21.pdf

"Those in authority at the time knew that there was a shortfall. The war cabinet in London chose not to act on it.
Churchill’s lack of empathy for India and ‘all to do with it’ mattered; his immediate reaction to Amery’s last-ditch
plea for more shipping on November 10 was ‘a preliminary flourish on Indians breeding like rabbits and being paid a million a day by us for doing nothing about
the war’."

In summary, while a sin of omission rather than commision, Britain as the ruler of the time has to bear some responsibility for any humanitarian disasters that occurred.
Not knowing about it, or ignoring it or other excuses, would, rightly, have not been tolerated if they applied to the UK motherland itself

[Eirikur]

Stolen from twitter

-Hello, I’d like to buy a unicorn please.
- Sorry, we don’t sell unicorns.
- But I promised one for my children.
- Sorry, sir.
- WELL THE BALL’S IN YOUR COURT NOW, ISN’T IT, MATE?

[shaunbhoy]

In academic discourse one doesn't just produce a single academic out of a hat who agrees with one's views.

Clearly not. YOUR strategy seems to be produce 2 experts that cannot even agree with each other over the fundamentals.

2 things about the paper:

1. It refers to 19th century famines ONLY: The authors says: " I stress a third factor, knowledge, and suggest that limited information and knowledge constrained state capacity to act
during the nineteenth century famines"

Seems plausible enough............after all, the British Government of the time were apparently unaware of a famine that was happening on their own doorstep.

None of this covers the Bengal famine of 1942-1944 which killed between 1-5 million (the exact figure is disputed, most academics agree on 3 million).
No one argues that there was any lack of knowledge while it was happening - it was extensively reported on at the time.

"Those in authority at the time knew that there was a shortfall. The war cabinet in London chose not to act on it. "

Yes, in their defence, at the time there were one or two more pressing matters for the British Government to be weighing up.......the preparations for liberating our hapless continental comrades from the clutches of fascism...........at huge expense and, ultimately it seems, with very little gratitude.

In summary, while a sin of omission rather than commision, Britain as the ruler of the time has to bear some responsibility for any humanitarian disasters that occurred.
Not knowing about it, or ignoring it or other excuses, would, rightly, have not been tolerated if they applied to the UK motherland itself

Uber-Liberal poppycock. God only knows where you dig this mealy-mouthed codswallop up from but all it does is reinforce the fact that you are a deluded simpleton.