Speaking of Israel...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And a sound strategy it was too. It was the whole point of the Seven Years War, which allowed us to deprive France of her empire (and make it ours instead). If it weren't for that traitorous turncoat British officer...

British?

[Husar]

Bah, if we hadn't kept you fighting eachother you would have ruled the world in our stead, and we all know how badly that went under the spanish let alone the slices of africa we let you have.

We screwed you guys over to protect the world from mainland tyranny.

According to Wikipedia, the colonial governing was much improved after some atrocities happened and turned into one much improved even in comparison to other nations. How Germany is comparable to the Spanish now is entirely beyond me, there not just mainlanders and islanders in Europe.

And ignoring that, having colonies was a bad idea in the first place, that's why we stayed out of it until the wonderful institution of monarchy gave us an idiot who wanted glory and money for the capitalists who had been begging to be allowed to subdue others for a long time. And who invented capitalism again?

[Greyblades]

British?

The American Revolution was at first considered the Second English Civil War, the concept that an Anglo-Saxon North American was seperate from an Anglo-Saxon European was an invention that came about at the end of the war. Before then, George Washington was for all intents and purposes British.

According to Wikipedia, the colonial governing was much improved after some atrocities happened and turned into one much improved even in comparison to other nations. How Germany is comparable to the Spanish now is entirely beyond me.

I was including the Italian, Portugese, Belgian colonies in my assessment. Had those German colonies been British, the atrocities would not have happened to the extent that they did, if only due to Britain having already reformed in response to it's own set of atrocities in the preceding centuries.

There not just mainlanders and islanders in Europe.

Matter of opinion apparantly, though I could not think of a different set of labels to seperate Britain from the rest of the European colonisers.

And ignoring that, having colonies was a bad idea in the first place, that's why we stayed out of it until the wonderful institution of monarchy gave us an idiot who wanted glory and money for the capitalists who had been begging to be allowed to subdue others for a long time. And who invented capitalism again?

We also invented the Maxim machine gun, doesnt mean we always obeyed it's mindless chatter any more than we did the capitalists; that you king did, well, buyer beware and all that.

[Husar]

I was including the Italian, Portugese, Belgian colonies in my assessment. Had those German colonies been British, the atrocities would not have happened to the extent that they did, if only due to Britain having already reformed in response to it's own set of atrocities in the preceding centuries.

Reformed? We began this by talking about how Britain ruined the Middle East after WW1...
The idea that everybody should hand over their colonies to Britain and bow in submission because Britain "invented" or "mastered" the submission of large parts of the planet is pretty ludicrous. The idea to focus on our own matters and not get colonies at all was a much better one.

Matter of opinion apparantly, though I could not think of a different set of labels to seperate Britain from the rest of the European colonisers.

It's just more British exceptionalism, or at least it sounds like it is.

We also invented the Maxim machine gun, doesnt mean we always obeyed it's mindless chatter any more than we did the capitalists; that you king did, well, buyer beware and all that.

With that argument you could also sell guns to children...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The American Revolution was at first considered the Second English Civil War, the concept that an Anglo-Saxon North American was seperate from an Anglo-Saxon European was an invention that came about at the end of the war. Before then, George Washington was for all intents and purposes British...

George was a Virginian. That made him, by birth, a subject of the crown. As a subject of the crown taking arms against crown authority, there can be no doubt that he was a traitor to that authority.

Even after George gave England the pretext they wanted to move against France's possessions in the New World (quite possibly inadvertently and certainly by fortifying a poorly sited location), nobody would give him a royal commission. After minimizing the debacle that was the Braddock expedition, they still would not give him a royal commission.

In some ways, this is symptomatic of the entire screwed up relationship between England and what became the USofA. Little or no effort was made to allow Americans access to England's institutions despite the fact that the cultural ties between the two groups were closer than any of England's other colonial relationships. The Scots had seats in Parliament and a say in affairs, their fair share of commissioned officers, their share of government job holders -- not so the Americans. Had any real effort along those lines been made in the 1760s, the Revolution would have been stop-punched and the history of the world quite different.

[Greyblades]

Had any real effort along those lines been made in the 1760s, the Revolution would have been stop-punched and the history of the world quite different.

Yup. Bummer 'aint it?

Reformed? We began this by talking about how Britain ruined the Middle East after WW1...

You're the one who said the colonial governing had much improved after atrocity, we had made such improvements before germany was even starting.

The idea that everybody should hand over their colonies to Britain and bow in submission because Britain "invented" or "mastered" the submission of large parts of the planet is pretty ludicrous. The idea to focus on our own matters and not get colonies at all was a much better one.

When did I say you should have handed them over? I said you, Italy and the Belgians shouldn't have tried in the first place and left the area to be colonized by the professionals.

It's just more British exceptionalism, or at least it sounds like it is.

You do realize that I was joking when I said "we screwed you guys over to protect the world from mainland tyranny"?

With that argument you could also sell guns to children...

Ok... I dont see how you could have gotten that from what I typed, but ok... Look capitalism is like a dog: fun, useful, loyal when you feed it and a menace when left undisciplined. However, it isn't the pet store's fault fido died when you let him chase cars.

[Husar]

You're the one who said the colonial governing had much improved after atrocity, we had made such improvements before germany was even starting.

Obviously not improved enough if you kept ruining countries long after the improvements had been made. I also noted that according to wikipedia, the german reforms improved the german colonial system beyond the ones of other nations at the time.

When did I say you should have handed them over? I said you, Italy and the Belgians shouldn't have tried in the first place and left the area to be colonized by the professionals.

I already covered that. Not only was our improved colonial system better, I also already said that noone should have acquired colonies, not you, not France, not Belgium and not Germany. At least Germany managed to stick to that ideal until the last minute when the Kaiser (not king) unfortunately finally succumbed to British-invented ideals.

You do realize that I was joking when I said "we screwed you guys over to protect the world from mainland tyranny"?

That's inconsequential, I was already not entirely serious with my original statement blaming Britain and yet we're debating it now anyway.
Because even when I'm just joking, you British people cannot just leave a comment that does not praise you as exceptionally good.

Ok... I dont see how you could have gotten that from what I typed, but ok... Look capitalism is like a dog: fun, useful, loyal when you feed it and a menace when left undisciplined. However, it isn't the pet store's fault fido died when you let him chase cars.

You are aware that your own empire and the atrocities committed by it before any reforms also largely served monetary (capitalist) interests, right? So blaming us for not using capitalism correctly comes right back to you.
And your argument really makes little sense, capitalism is an ideology, you also didn't want the USSR export more communism and hope that people would use it in a good way. Also in this case it's more like the pet store trained fido to be an attack dog, then fido came back and tried to rob the store and now the store complains that fido is so aggressive.

[Greyblades]

I was lining up a joke that went along the lines of: capitalism is supposed to be used to provide someone to blame the atrocities on, to be able to say "That wasn't us, that was the evil buisnessmen! We had nothing to do with it, Honest!" with a straight face, thus deflecting blame and responsibility while reaping the profits.

I was going to say your failings was actually reforming instead of throwing the colonists under a bus and making a token effort to make things right until everyone forgot about it and you and your capitalist buddies can go on as normal.

Then I found out I am incapable of making something that cynical funny, even in the form of a sardonic faux-endorsment of kicking the can.

Then I started to realize how much of a paralel that supposed joke has with reality.

I am tired of this round.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

George was a Virginian. That made him, by birth, a subject of the crown. As a subject of the crown taking arms against crown authority, there can be no doubt that he was a traitor to that authority.

Even after George gave England the pretext they wanted to move against France's possessions in the New World (quite possibly inadvertently and certainly by fortifying a poorly sited location), nobody would give him a royal commission. After minimizing the debacle that was the Braddock expedition, they still would not give him a royal commission.

In some ways, this is symptomatic of the entire screwed up relationship between England and what became the USofA. Little or no effort was made to allow Americans access to England's institutions despite the fact that the cultural ties between the two groups were closer than any of England's other colonial relationships. The Scots had seats in Parliament and a say in affairs, their fair share of commissioned officers, their share of government job holders -- not so the Americans. Had any real effort along those lines been made in the 1760s, the Revolution would have been stop-punched and the history of the world quite different.

A fair assessment, in fact those living in the Colonies were actively prevented from attaining Commissions in the British Army. Had George gone to England and smoozed (which should have been possible after the Braddock Expedition) he might have been able to purchase a captaincy.

When we look at the later handling of Canada and Australia and the infinitely better relationship the UK enjoys with them to this day (contrary to Myth Canada and Australia were not required to entire WWI and they certainly couldn't be expected to enter WWII - but did) we have to conclude that the experience of losing the 13 Colonies had a positive impact on British Colonial policy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I was lining up a joke that went along the lines of: capitalism is supposed to be used to provide someone to blame the atrocities on, to be able to say "That wasn't us, that was the evil buisnessmen! We had nothing to do with it, Honest!" with a straight face, thus deflecting blame and responsibility while reaping the profits.

I was going to say your failings was actually reforming instead of throwing the colonists under a bus and making a token effort to make things right until everyone forgot about it and you and your capitalist buddies can go on as normal.

Then I found out I am incapable of making something that cynical funny, even in the form of a sardonic faux-endorsment of kicking the can.

Then I started to realize how much of a paralel that supposed joke has with reality.

I am tired of this round.

In capitalism, humans exploit other humans. In socialism, it is the other way around.

[a completely inoffensive name]

British exceptional-ism should have died at the end of the 20th century. Are you people trying to keep the nationalistic tank filled with your cheap victories over latin american countries that can't keep their own currency from devaluing?

[Greyblades]

American exceptionalism has been running on full blast for 70 years with a nationalistic tank containing only your performance in two world wars (well, 1 and 1/4) a rebellion and a civil war. We had 4 world wars (counting napoleon and 7 year) an empire and several times where we went against the premier powers of the ages and fought them to a standstill. The falklands is not even a blip on the radar compared to the reserves we built up in the last 6 centuries, our nationalistic tank wont be empty any time soon.

We can only hope that such precident will inspire us to live up to the old accomplishments but with a modern standard of morality.

More likely we will continue doing what the rest of the western world is: growing ever more complacent, rotting on our faded laurels and comforting ourselves with tales of past generations as we are soon overtaken by asia and later africa.

[rory_20_uk]

I disagree.

America managed to massively fill its tank since it manages to see victory in everything and not only did it win WW1 and 2, but the Korean, the Cold and Iraq 1 and 2. Coupled with a child like belief in their own self righteousness it is a potent force.

The British went through this phase and came out of it having effectively lost WW1 and WW2 (Empire, prestige and world position) and declined ever since - with a large part of this by choice.

We also appear to have a fetish of applying the morals of today to the entire Empire and feeling oh so guilty about it all (yeah, India was a thriving democracy that we overturned and we didn't buy the black slaves off other black people and everywhere we left became so much fairer; the vote for men in the UK only arrived c. 1900 and life expectancy in Liverpool in 1880 was 18 years). Yes, Maggie managed to beat off a also ran country but frankly that shows how far we've fallen - getting all pleased we beat Argentina??!?

We're not complacent - we're pathetic.

We're mewing about multiculturalism and how we mustn't stand for anything unless that upsets someone somewhere - often here as we are more than happy for people to relocate and not want to naturalise.

Defence is nasty and best we don't spend money on that. We also managed to get health and safety legislation in to the armed forces. We are affectionately known as the "Borrowers" by the Americans since equipment levels are so pitiful that the troops are all but pitied. We act like someone with no self esteem that if we keep doing everything we're asked to they'll keep on liking us.

Doing business with anyone whose moral code is not as squeaky clean as we, for reasons lost on me, delude ourselves that we have as trade is also nasty - apart from the Financial Sector which we treat like a free trade zone and try not to monitor in the slightest.

We spend money on moving the deck chairs around our failing social welfare system which increases in both cost and %GDP for the last 50 years or so. Politicians of all stripes are so scared of loosing votes that all big decisions are overlooked (e.g. a property tax that increases uncapped as house prices increase or even that perhaps paying for everyone to become a graduate is not as important as paying for people to be able to do something useful) since it seems better to be the leader of a sinking ship than try to fix it.

[rory_20_uk]

In capitalism, humans exploit other humans. In socialism, it is the other way around.

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

[Greyblades]

Which is why i have said many times that only psychopaths and idiots allows the application of either exclusively.

Also if the result of "national humility" (or whatever you call the opposite of exceptionalism) is the self hatred and despair rory is exhibiting then you'll forgive me if I cling to national pride and to hell with all you who would put us down while hiding behind your own pitiful blood stained legacies. Britain's legacy isn't spotless but it is a damn sight more bearable than that of the US, and if they can find the pride to excell in thiers why the hell cant we?

[Husar]

Which is why i have said many times that only psychopaths and idiots allows the application of either exclusively.

Also if the result of "national humility" (or whatever you call the opposite of exceptionalism) is the self hatred and despair rory is exhibiting then you'll forgive me if I cling to national pride and to hell with all you who would put us down while hiding behind your own pitiful blood stained legacies. Britain's legacy isn't spotless but it is a damn sight more bearable than that of the US, and if they can find the pride to excell in thiers why the hell cant we?

First you say that one does not have to choose exclusively from extremes, then you say that because you do not like one extreme, you choose the other extreme?

[a completely inoffensive name]

How is Britain's legacy more bearable than the U.S? More people have directly died from British policies than U.S. policies by an order of magnitude.

Palestine is a war zone due to the British.
Large parts of Africa are a war zone due to the British and the rest is slowly improving due to Chinese investment.
India/Pakistan is an ongoing Cold War due to the British.

You can bring up dismantling slavery peacefully vs the US bloodshed all you want, but its spin at its best, ignorance at its worst. The U.K. industrialized first and it industrialized quick. You no longer needed slavery and thus you could easily eliminate it once you no longer depended on it. The U.S did not reach U.K. levels of industrialization until another 20 years after the Civil War.

Don't get me wrong, I still love you guys more than anyone.

[Greyblades]

First you say that one does not have to choose exclusively from extremes, then you say that because you do not like one extreme, you choose the other extreme?

The way I see it Socialism and capitalism is a dilemma between two sides where both extremes have thier benefits and deficits for the enactor. Pride and Shame on a national scale however is a choice where only one extreme is primarily beneficial to the enactor (pride) and the other is only beneficial to those on the outside (shame).

Incidentally I never said I wouldn't feel shame for the past, to ignore it all invites forgetting lessons that were learned and repeating the less savory elements. However I reject the implication that the bad of british history outweighs the good, and I will resist to the end and ridicule to hell and back any who would demand that shame define us seemingly because they dont like that I feel pride in a legacy greater than most others; others that themselves inspire greater pride in thier inheritors and endure less ridicule from thier contemporaries despite being morally worse.

How is Britain's legacy more bearable than the U.S? More people have directly died from British policies than U.S. policies by an order of magnitude.

More people have also been saved by British medicine and uplifted by British education. Citing numbers of sufferers without accounting for scale difference is disingenuous when our population peaked at 1 Billion 100 years ago and yours is currently peaking at 350 million.

Palestine is a war zone due to the British.

I'm sure the Palestinians and Israelies refusing to stop trying to kill eachother once we were no longer able to keep them in check had nothing to do with it's current state. Also, I could have sworn that it was US support that made Israel confident enough to think it could keep getting away with being unreasonably harsh with it's palestinian population

Large parts of Africa are a war zone due to the British and the rest is slowly improving due to Chinese investment.

Large parts of Latin america and the middel east are warzones too, worse because you are still making it so whereas we mostly stopped meddeling with our former colonies.

India/Pakistan is an ongoing Cold War due to the British.

Their historical animosity and choice to continue such conflict when we left has nothing to do with it as we know. We wanted to leave them a united india, but they insisted and as africa has shown sticking a bunch of hostile neighbours under one flag wouldnt have worked either. The only way a cold war could have been avoided is if we stayed as a common enemy, and after we gutted ourselves fighting the nazis I somehow dont think that would have worked out in anyone's favour.

You can bring up dismantling slavery peacefully vs the US bloodshed all you want, but its spin at its best, ignorance at its worst. The U.K. industrialized first and it industrialized quick. You no longer needed slavery and thus you could easily eliminate it once you no longer depended on it. The U.S did not reach U.K. levels of industrialization until another 20 years after the Civil War.

But that's the thing, while the fact that we gave slavery up willingly while you had to bloodily excise it can be excused as a result of economics, what makes your side more morally rehensable is that you had to resort to such extremes and you still failed to finish the job. You ended slavery but the racism stayed hot as ever for 150+ years, with a third of your population is still waiting for the south to rise again the american shame is still being generated by a frankly borderline-retarded political right wing.

As much as we gripe over our government being run by idiots, our national shame is mostly a part of a nebulous past that we can level out with pride, it's in the past and paired with a lot of good so we can deal with it, whereas yours is still perpetuating now and cant be viewed with the dispassion of history. Yet when you try to make the argument for why america is a net benefit to the world (some damn good arguments I've seen that I agree with wholeheartedly) you get less resistance than when I try even though going by the numbers my argument is more compelling.

I suppose the main problem I have with this situation is that our detractors are not our former colonies calling us devils, it's our contemporaries. Either fellow imperialists that screwed the world so hard we were seen as moderates, or relative do nothings who's main contribution to the world beer and cheese and resentment from petty wars and show no sign that they could have done any better in our stead. The only member state of such categories that could even argue to moral superiority is France and they seem to lack a representative on this forum. The sentiment becomes, to mangle G.R.R.Martin: By what right do the wolves judge the Lion

[a completely inoffensive name]

More people have also been saved by British medicine and uplifted by British education. Citing numbers of sufferers without accounting for scale difference is disingenuous when our population peaked at 1 Billion 100 years ago and yours is currently peaking at 350 million.

How many Indians and Africans got that British medicine and education? Let's not kid ourselves, when you say your population peaked at 1 billion, you mean your population peaked at 50 million white Brits in the isles, Canada, New Zealand and Australia and 950 million conquered indigenous.

I'm sure the Palestinians and Israelies refusing to stop trying to kill eachother once we were no longer able to keep them in check had nothing to do with it's current state. Also, I could have sworn that it was US support that made Israel confident enough to think it could keep getting away with being unreasonably harsh with it's palestinian population

You drew an arbitrary line in the sand and now you want to say that because they think your line was arbitrary and wrong, any conflict is solely on their shoulders. Also shame on the US for picking a side in a conflict.

Large parts of Latin america and the middel east are warzones too, worse because you are still making it so whereas we mostly stopped meddeling with our former colonies.

You only stopped because you lost the political will and the money to do so. Their is no altruism in your withdraw.

Their historical animosity and choice to continue such conflict when we left has nothing to do with it as we know. We wanted to leave them a united india, but they insisted and as africa has shown sticking a bunch of hostile neighbours under one flag wouldnt have worked either. The only way a cold war could have been avoided is if we stayed as a common enemy, and after we gutted ourselves fighting the nazis I somehow dont think that would have worked out in anyone's favour.

Yes, 200 years of British rule did absolutely nothing to exacerbate Hindu-Muslim relations. Because we all know that the British were believers in "equal opportunity" back then. Funny how fast defending colonialism devolves into "it is all the locals fault".

But that's the thing, while the fact that we gave slavery up willingly while you had to bloodily excise it can be excused as a result of economics, what makes your side more morally rehensable is that you had to resort to such extremes and you still failed to finish the job. You ended slavery but the racism stayed hot as ever for 150+ years, with a third of your population is still waiting for the south to rise again the american shame is still being generated by a frankly borderline-retarded political right wing.

So because we did not invent the steam engine first, we are therefore morally reprehensible in pursuing our only method of eliminating slavery....

And speaking of racism persisting, I didn't realize Cecil Rhodes went to Africa on a mission of charity. And I didn't realize the UKIP just wants to help Muslims find the rest of their families by sending them out of the country.

As much as we gripe over our government being run by idiots, our national shame is mostly a part of a nebulous past that we can level out with pride, it's in the past and paired with a lot of good so we can deal with it, whereas yours is still perpetuating now and cant be viewed with the dispassion of history. Yet when you try to make the argument for why america is a net benefit to the world (some damn good arguments I've seen that I agree with wholeheartedly) you get less resistance than when I try even though going by the numbers my argument is more compelling.

Africa is objectively worse off from colonialism. India is a mixed bag at best. I think the aboriginals in Australia and New Zealand would also have a problem with your argument.

I suppose the main problem I have with this situation is that our detractors are not our former colonies calling us devils, it's our contemporaries. Either fellow imperialists that screwed the world so hard we were seen as moderates, or relative do nothings who's main contribution to the world beer and cheese and resentment from petty wars and show no sign that they could have done any better in our stead. The only member state of such categories that could even argue to moral superiority is France and they seem to lack a representative on this forum. The sentiment becomes, to mangle G.R.R.Martin: By what right do the wolves judge the Lion

"You were just as bad as us. Therefore we did nothing wrong."
I find it hilarious that you insist on asserting that all the problems of the colonized world originate in the locals and all the good that occurred came from the British.

I'm not really interested in making a case that the British empire was objectively horrible. I wish to come clean and say that the only reason I am going this path is because I get tired of your US bashing.

[Greyblades]

How many Indians and Africans got that British medicine and education?.

For a good while, few, however before 1870 all people who werent rich went mostly uneducated, white or otherwise. Same with medicine, if you werent rich you got nothing unless it was serious. It started bad to nonexistant and got better over time in both our contries, Ghandi and many other Indians were educated in London, there were indian MP's in 1890, in the last few decades we were pretty good, especially with the backdrop of post industrial Europe.

Let's not kid ourselves, when you say your population peaked at 1 billion, you mean your population peaked at 50 million white Brits in the isles, Canada, New Zealand and Australia and 950 million conquered indigenous.

We're judging ourselves on how we treated the indigenous arent we? How many blacks, latin or native americans got american medicine and education in the 1800's?

You drew an arbitrary line in the sand and now you want to say that because they think your line was arbitrary and wrong, any conflict is solely on their shoulders. Also shame on the US for picking a side in a conflict.

Could have sworn it was the united nations that drew the lines. Also, it's not shame on you for joining a war, it's shame for continuing to support them whenever they turned nasty.

You only stopped because you lost the political will and the money to do so. Their is no altruism in your withdraw.

Did I say there was? I'm arguing equivilance to america not superiority, and you have yet to withdraw from yours.

Yes, 200 years of British rule did absolutely nothing to exacerbate Hindu-Muslim relations. Because we all know that the British were believers in "equal opportunity" back then. Funny how fast defending colonialism devolves into "it is all the locals fault".

I never said I was defending colonialism. And if we didnt believe in equal oppertunity half of you were actively hunting it for heresy.

So because we did not invent the steam engine first, we are therefore morally reprehensible in pursuing our only method of eliminating slavery....

No you are morally inferior in this matter for getting your reformer shot and leaving the job half done for 100 years.

And speaking of racism persisting, I didn't realize Cecil Rhodes went to Africa on a mission of charity. And I didn't realize the UKIP just wants to help Muslims find the rest of their families by sending them out of the country.

Cecil Rhodes was a product of his time, like Henry Ford and H.P Lovecraft people were fully capable of being dicks. As for Ukip, ours is the reactionary outlier, yours is the (dis)honourable opposition.

Africa is objectively worse off from colonialism. India is a mixed bag at best. I think the aboriginals in Australia and New Zealand would also have a problem with your argument.

Quite likely africa and the aboriginals would be better off, though with thier relative lack in technology and education there was basically no chance of them ever reaching the modern age without being conquered and colonised, be it by Europeans, Arabians, Indians, East Asians or even Native American. My argument is that by taking everyone else's performance into account Africa would be(and in some places was) a lot worse if they were under anyone else except maybe you and France.

"You were just as bad as us. Therefore we did nothing wrong."
I find it hilarious that you insist on asserting that all the problems of the colonized world originate in the locals and all the good that occurred came from the British.

...I have no idea where you got that idea, my message was "we're bad, but the rest of you europeans were especially worse, so shut the hell up."

I'm not really interested in making a case that the British empire was objectively horrible. I wish to come clean and say that the only reason I am going this path is because I get tired of your US bashing.

Well firstly, I cant help but wonder what you were expecting when you waded into a nationalist pissing match with that opener, but did you not even read this bit?:

Yet when you try to make the argument for why america is a net benefit to the world (some damn good arguments I've seen that I agree with wholeheartedly) you get less resistance than when I try even though going by the numbers my argument is more compelling.

I dare say nationalistic pride is the only reason I wont admit you're better than us. Well, that and the rotten, festering albertross around your neck you call the republican party.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I wasn't expecting anything but a fight. But then I realized my argument is just dumb UK bashing. In all honesty I would at this point rather see the British get back that ambition just because I am tired of seeing Merkel's face whenever a big crisis hits Europe.

[Husar]

The way I see it Socialism and capitalism is a dilemma between two sides where both extremes have thier benefits and deficits for the enactor. Pride and Shame on a national scale however is a choice where only one extreme is primarily beneficial to the enactor (pride) and the other is only beneficial to those on the outside (shame).

Incidentally I never said I wouldn't feel shame for the past, to ignore it all invites forgetting lessons that were learned and repeating the less savory elements. However I reject the implication that the bad of british history outweighs the good, and I will resist to the end and ridicule to hell and back any who would demand that shame define us seemingly because they dont like that I feel pride in a legacy greater than most others; others that themselves inspire greater pride in thier inheritors and endure less ridicule from thier contemporaries despite being morally worse.

So remembering lessons that were learned is of no benefit to the enactor?
And how is extreme pride beneficial if it leads to conflict? Do you think conflict is beneficial to the enactor?
Does that mean you think Russia's extreme pride and the resulting annexation of eastern Ukraine are beneficial for Russia and should be encouraged within Russia from a Russian perspective?

As for replacing slavery with industrialism, that's a really minor improvement that ultimately destroyed our planet due to climate change. Congratulations.

[Pannonian]

So remembering lessons that were learned is of no benefit to the enactor?
And how is extreme pride beneficial if it leads to conflict? Do you think conflict is beneficial to the enactor?
Does that mean you think Russia's extreme pride and the resulting annexation of eastern Ukraine are beneficial for Russia and should be encouraged within Russia from a Russian perspective?

As for replacing slavery with industrialism, that's a really minor improvement that ultimately destroyed our planet due to climate change. Congratulations.

And thus we get the blame whatever happens. We get the blame for using slavery to get us into a position of dominance. We get the blame for giving up slavery due to industrialisation. The moral rules change, on the proviso that the rules must always conclude that Britain (especially England) is in the wrong. If the rules don't lead to that conclusion, change the rules until they do.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Destroyed our planet?

Just a bit hyperbolic there yes?

Climate change may screw over Micronesia quite thoroughly and create a host of other problems, but perspective please. Even if we manage to trigger wars, mass killings, and plagues it just means that we will have destroyed ourselves.

Even if we were to somehow convert this globe into some form of Arrakis, we would still not have destroyed the planet.

We will curtail things well enough to not follow Venus -- Sol is far enough off.

[Husar]

Just a bit hyperbolic there yes?

Yes, I wanted to say that industrialism just turned everyone into servants of the rich, but then I had this crazy idea and couldn't resist saying it out loud.

And Pannonian, that people hear so many bad things about Britain and the US might also be because every topic gets redirected to these countries, often by people who come from there. If you toot your own horn all the time, at some point I might feel like knocking you down a notch. I know that I'm not allowed to have a sense of humor just because I'm German, but not everything I say about Britain is entirely serious. I thought I already said that:

That's inconsequential, I was already not entirely serious with my original statement blaming Britain and yet we're debating it now anyway.

So if my original (much "smaller") statement wasn't serious, it absolutely has to be serious when I say Britain destroyed the planet, makes sense...

[Greyblades]

So remembering lessons that were learned is of no benefit to the enactor?

Congratulations on not noticing a change in sentiment resulting from a day of thought, as I explicitly stated in your quote of me: to ignore it all invites forgetting lessons that were learned and repeating the less savory elements.
I still reject the implication that the bad of british history outweighs the good.

And how is extreme pride beneficial if it leads to conflict? Do you think conflict is beneficial to the enactor?

Tell me you are not naiive enough to believe that all conflict is incapable of being beneficial to any combatant, especially considering your nation was literally started on the result of conflict. Or are we to believe that the austro prussian wars played no part in German unification?

Does that mean you think Russia's extreme pride and the resulting annexation of eastern Ukraine are beneficial for Russia and should be encouraged within Russia from a Russian perspective?

Could have sworn the ukranian conflict was putin's attempt to stay in power by distracting his people from troubles at home, troubles causing shame not pride.

There's an argument to be made for the follies of pride, but it comes not from the ukraine but from serbia. Indeed there is much merit to the theory that World War One's continuation beyond a year is down to both sides being too prideful to give up on a pointless war.

As for replacing slavery with industrialism, that's a really minor improvement that ultimately destroyed our planet due to climate change. Congratulations.

It made you did it not? Both Germany the indutrial powerhouse and Husar the industrial dependant, neither could exist without the chain of events that preceeded your birth and the greatest of those events was the industrial revolution, which was going to happen regardless of who started it.

That point of pride is that we got there first, not that noone else could.

[Husar]

Congratulations on not noticing a change in sentiment resulting from a day of thought, as I explicitly stated in your quote of me: to ignore it all invites forgetting lessons that were learned and repeating the less savory elements.
I still reject the implication that the bad of british history outweighs the good.

I was talking about two statements in the same post, did it take you a day to write it?

Tell me you are not naiive enough to believe that all conflict is incapable of being beneficial to any combatant, especially considering your nation was literally started on the result of conflict. Or are we to believe that the austro prussian wars played no part in German unification?

Yeah, it was nice and all, but led directly to two World Wars which we started and lost...
A peaceful unification would have been preferable but not achievable due to the hostility of/conflict with the neighbors.

In the end all that conflict also unloaded onto the neighbors during the World Wars.
Part of why we decided to drop the conflict and hostilities for the most part after WW2.
And it's your conflict-loving, proud nation that keeps moaning about our peaceful union.

Could have sworn the ukranian conflict was putin's attempt to stay in power by distracting his people from troubles at home, troubles causing shame not pride.

That's your interpretation, but I do not think that proud Russians would see any of those internal "issues" as issues or think that those things are shameful. They do not quite think like British people, different customs, mentality, culture etc.

It made you did it not? Both Germany the indutrial powerhouse and Husar the industrial dependant, neither could exist without the chain of events that preceeded your birth and the greatest of those events was the industrial revolution, which was going to happen regardless of who started it.

That point of pride is that we got there first, not that noone else could.

You mean it is impossible that I could exist without the industrial revolution? I'm not a test tube baby...
And taking pride in something that happened due to random chance and that one didn't even remotely take part in is completely nonsensical. You also kind of forgot to read my last post it seems.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How is Britain's legacy more bearable than the U.S? More people have directly died from British policies than U.S. policies by an order of magnitude.

Palestine is a war zone due to the British.
Large parts of Africa are a war zone due to the British and the rest is slowly improving due to Chinese investment.
India/Pakistan is an ongoing Cold War due to the British.

You can bring up dismantling slavery peacefully vs the US bloodshed all you want, but its spin at its best, ignorance at its worst. The U.K. industrialized first and it industrialized quick. You no longer needed slavery and thus you could easily eliminate it once you no longer depended on it. The U.S did not reach U.K. levels of industrialization until another 20 years after the Civil War.

Don't get me wrong, I still love you guys more than anyone.

We invented your democracy - you're welcome.

Industrialisation also had no impact on the slave trade because slaves were only used in the colonies, which did not industrialise until much later.

Palastine is actually at least as much YOUR fault because the US funded the Jewish terrorists who forced out the British forces and then started a war against the Arabs.

Africa? Please, don't even start, the parts of Africa that really stink now were run by Belgium, we ran SA and Kenya as well as Zimbabwe - you guys invented Liberia because you hated black people.

India and Pakistan? The Pakistani's refused to live in a country not run by Muslims (they only accepted a multi-religious India under the British jackboot).

Internal British Government papers from the 20's predicted Indian Independence around 1960, as it was thought we would need 40 years to bed-in democracy, so we got started, created the Indian Parliament... then along came Ghandi to accelerate the timetable and it all went wrong.

[Greyblades]

PVC He's already bowed out, kindly reserve your mud slinging for someone who is actually asking for it.

I was talking about two statements in the same post, did it take you a day to write it?

Technically I have been thinking about this over several days, I was referring to my revision between the sentiment that shame has no benefit to one of shame having benefit but the degree of despair rory showed is far too much for the amount of wrong our history bears, especially when compared to the shame of other nationalities with similar atrocity to thier names.

Yeah, it was nice and all, but led directly to two World Wars which we started and lost...
A peaceful unification would have been preferable but not achievable due to the hostility of/conflict with the neighbors.

That would have been ideal, but ideals require consensus to be carried out painlessly, not even Bismark was able to wrestle germany from austria through diplomacy alone and what his successors did with the empire his generation left them does not detract from their accomplisments.

In the end all that conflict also unloaded onto the neighbors during the World Wars.
Part of why we decided to drop the conflict and hostilities for the most part after WW2.
And it's your conflict-loving, proud nation that keeps moaning about our peaceful union.

It would be wierd if it was a meek peace loving nation that complained about your union.

On my part: my objections with your union is that it's headed by a bunch of political retirees past thier prime who are propped up far past the point they should have failed. It's the same thought I have about scottish independance, it might have a place in the future, but it wont be a happy one unless it finds a better alternatve to the current leadership.

That's your interpretation, but I do not think that proud Russians would see any of those internal "issues" as issues or think that those things are shameful. They do not quite think like British people, different customs, mentality, culture etc.

I suppose, but if any of us are an indication I doubt the country that once made the world tremble at it's whims is completely over the downsizing it suffered in the 90's.

You mean it is impossible that I could exist without the industrial revolution? I'm not a test tube baby...

The physical being that is husar might exist, but the culmination of education, ideals and experience that composes the person I'm talking to would be impossible without the influences of the societal changes brought on by the industrial revolution.

And taking pride in something that happened due to random chance and that one didn't even remotely take part in is completely nonsensical. You also kind of forgot to read my last post it seems.

Eh, honestly didnt notice that one until after I posted.

Random chance? I suppose, go down that path of thought long enough and you end up in the realm of predeterminism: that none of what you do is actually down to any self determination but merely a highly complex organic machine reacting to external stimuli. An automaton that has fooled itself into thinking it has any manner of choice. I am not that cynical just yet.

As for my involvment: yes, I wasnt there. There is however the comfort knowing that people like me, with the same language, manner and, to a degree, lineage managed to achieve greatness, and that they have left behind so much to provide my generation with even more potential than they had. If nothing else is a legitimate reason to be proud, it is knowing that so much is proven possible for the category I find myself a part.

The challenge will be living up to that potential without further burdening the conscience of the following generations.

[Husar]

Technically I have been thinking about this over several days, I was referring to my revision between the sentiment that shame has no benefit to one of shame having benefit but the degree of despair rory showed is far too much for the amount of wrong our history bears, especially when compared to the shame of other nationalities with similar atrocity to thier names.
That would have been ideal, but ideals require consensus to be carried out painlessly, not even Bismark was able to wrestle germany from austria through diplomacy alone and what his successors did with the empire his generation left them does not detract from their accomplisments.
[...]
The physical being that is husar might exist, but the culmination of education, ideals and experience that composes the person I'm talking to would be impossible without the influences of the societal changes brought on by the industrial revolution.
Eh, honestly didnt notice that one until after I posted.
[...]
Random chance? I suppose, go down that path of thought long enough and you end up in the realm of predeterminism: that none of what you do is actually down to any self determination but merely a highly complex organic machine reacting to external stimuli. An automaton that has fooled itself into thinking it has any manner of choice. I am not that cynical just yet.

As for my involvment: yes, I wasnt there. There is however the comfort knowing that people like me, with the same language, manner and, to a degree, lineage managed to achieve greatness, and that they have left behind so much to provide my generation with even more potential than they had. If nothing else is a legitimate reason to be proud, it is knowing that so much is proven possible for the category I find myself a part.

The challenge will be living up to that potential without further burdening the conscience of the following generations.

I put these together to break through the ever-expanding number of quotes per post and because all of it is related in a way.
First of all, is it cynical to accept a reality? You say the person I am is a result of all the stimuli I got up to this point in life, yet you think we can determine who we are and what we do?
If the mistakes of those who follow us cannot be blamed upon us, yet they can take pride in being formed by our legacy, then I think we have a logical conflict.
Maybe you can take pride in what you do with the legacy of your forefathers, if you have any great say in what you do, but more likely you can be thankful for what they left you with and how they raised you, although that may not be their achievement either but just a function of the stimuli they received themselves. In the end though, even if your brain is an automaton, it is still you and you are your brain. If there were a soul without any physical manifestation that can make completely free decisions, then there would be a sane person behind every mentally ill person or person with brain damage that would be able to determine the damage on a meta-level, like a soul trapped inside a broken machine. This seems impossible to prove however and I'm not aware of any indicators that this may be the case. For all intents and purposes, a decision is the result of the working of the neural network we call our brain. Psychiatrics and others work with the repeatable and predictable patterns that most of these machines show in order to fix them if they have adopted thought patterns that are detrimental to the individual or society.

Pride is a mechanism of this machine that ultimately deludes the machine into thinking that it has reached some sort of superiority over the other machines of its kind, or at least, superiority over a subset. Therefore the fact that I blame Britain for this or that should in no way affect your thankfulness for the improvements your forefathers left you, it can only affect your sense of pride and therefore your feeling of superiority if you delude yourself into thinking, even if subconsciously, that you are somehow superior to e.g. me now because of the things your forefathers did or did not do and the things my forefathers did or did not do.
To me however, the things your forefathers did or did not do do not change my idea of overall equality between the two of us today. If you become a banker or lawyer for HSBC tomorrow, that may change however.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This post is a result of ongoing brain processes and was written without further refinement or self-review. If you find any fault in the logic of this post, please help my brain rewire and prevent such faulty behavior in the future by pointing out the fault. Thank you.