What does the UK, France and the Netherlands have in common?

[InsaneApache]

The french have killed their monarchistic leaders and distanced themselves from their practices while the British keep claiming that their nation and government have continued since and are based on the one formed in 1066. Of course this matters in terms of responsibility.

If they pay something anyway, it might help you with paying the former colonies.

I seem to remember an act of regicide about 300 years ago. So that's us off the hook then.

[Husar]

I seem to remember an act of regicide about 300 years ago. So that's us off the hook then.

One problem is that you still celebrate and defend the atrocities, another is that you didn't have a restart like France did as Sarmatian explained.

I have incidentally found a way out for you. Given that your Royals are German royals anyway, they could become viceroys of the German colony of England, basically turning your entire country into a German colony, which also equals a change of great magnitude. Since we have already paid our war reparations, you'd be off the hook. The whole story being voluntary, there wouldn't be any bad blood between us either and who knows, maybe we'd improve your country and let you off our hook after 200 years or so.

Ah, the assumption that people lived idealistic, ultruistic lives before the evil Europeans intervened. Hilarious.

No, that is not in there, set your strawman up somewhere else. However, tribal cultures do require more cooperation within a tribe even though there is a clear leader with benefits, it's usually not as blatant and the whole thing is more transparent for all members. In contrast we got duped by our banks and our governments pretend there was nothing bad about it, just threw more money at them. Regardless of this, European intervention was not aimed at improving anything but the situation of the Europeans. To assume any kind of altruism by colonial powers is even more hilarious.

[Slyspy]

One problem is that you still celebrate and defend the atrocities, another is that you didn't have a restart like France did as Sarmatian explained.

I have incidentally found a way out for you. Given that your Royals are German royals anyway, they could become viceroys of the German colony of England, basically turning your entire country into a German colony, which also equals a change of great magnitude. Since we have already paid our war reparations, you'd be off the hook. The whole story being voluntary, there wouldn't be any bad blood between us either and who knows, maybe we'd improve your country and let you off our hook after 200 years or so.

That is the way that some Indian states chose and look what happened to them!

I'll leave the interpretation of that sentence up to the reader.

[HoreTore]

This whole thread is like scenes in Cops where a drug dealer shouts "I aint done nothing" while the cops find a bag of cocaine in his trunk.

Get over yourselves, Brits.

[Greyblades]

I wouldn't get your hopes up. Its been 1600 years and people still haven't gotten over Rome, the British empire will be thought back to fondly for millenia to come.

[Husar]

I wouldn't get your hopes up. Its been 1600 years and people still haven't gotten over Rome, the British empire will be thought back to fondly for millenia to come.

You can't even get your own neighbors to like you: http://www.eirigi.org/latest/latest220511_2.html

http://www.johnhorse.com/trail/00/bg/21azz.htm
http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/3391728

Just because some people like you nowadays there is no reason that contemporaries thought the same.
Rome has brought technology to others but it still happened through brutal war and conquering.
Had the German Reich won the war and established a new Reich for a thousand years where many technological advancements had been made, the survivors may also have thought fondly of it after a few hundred years. But I have never heard someone say that such a prospect would excuse the murders committed to establish it. And the same is true for every other empire.

[Pannonian]

You can't even get your own neighbors to like you: http://www.eirigi.org/latest/latest220511_2.html

http://www.johnhorse.com/trail/00/bg/21azz.htm
http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/3391728

Just because some people like you nowadays there is no reason that contemporaries thought the same.
Rome has brought technology to others but it still happened through brutal war and conquering.
Had the German Reich won the war and established a new Reich for a thousand years where many technological advancements had been made, the survivors may also have thought fondly of it after a few hundred years. But I have never heard someone say that such a prospect would excuse the murders committed to establish it. And the same is true for every other empire.

Why should it need to excuse it? It was par for the course for empires and kingdoms back then. No-one blames the African chiefs for enslaving African continentals in the first place, they only blame the British for transporting and using them. Hell, when we stopped the practice and started forcing slavers to release their captives (and who else in history did this before us?), we had to resettle them in out of the way places so they'd be safe from the original continental slavers. As for telling the Brits to suck it up, we do. We admit our history of using slaves and in inhumane conditions. We admitted that back in the 19th century. That's why we stopped doing it. To atone for our previous sins, we progressively stopped slavery, freed all remaining slaves in the empire, stopped other countries from transporting slaves, and resettled all those we'd captured from slavers wherever we could. All the later bits are being ignored, even though we were singularly principled in doing this at a time when slavery was the norm. Instead, we're asked to go back to the first sentence, "we used slaves in inhumane conditions", and ignore everything else.

[Husar]

Why should it need to excuse it? It was par for the course for empires and kingdoms back then. No-one blames the African chiefs for enslaving African continentals in the first place, they only blame the British for transporting and using them. Hell, when we stopped the practice and started forcing slavers to release their captives (and who else in history did this before us?), we had to resettle them in out of the way places so they'd be safe from the original continental slavers. As for telling the Brits to suck it up, we do. We admit our history of using slaves and in inhumane conditions. We admitted that back in the 19th century. That's why we stopped doing it. To atone for our previous sins, we progressively stopped slavery, freed all remaining slaves in the empire, stopped other countries from transporting slaves, and resettled all those we'd captured from slavers wherever we could. All the later bits are being ignored, even though we were singularly principled in doing this at a time when slavery was the norm. Instead, we're asked to go back to the first sentence, "we used slaves in inhumane conditions", and ignore everything else.

No, you just have a tendency to come across as people who ignore the first sentence and talk about the latter part all the time.