Org Mobile Site
Thread: Commonwealth 1 France 0
The British Empire was so wicked and evil that a former colony of a 'rival' empire asks to be admitted to the Commonwealth.
On a serious note. If what Mr. Kagame says is true about our neighbours to the south, the EU should look closely into what the French have been up to.
Originally Posted by :
Paul Kagame, the Rwandan President, says that his country will cement its bitter divorce from France and the French-speaking world, which he holds responsible for the 1994 slaughter of up to one million of his countrymen, by joining the Commonwealth later year.
“There are many benefits for us in joining the Commonwealth — cultural, economic, political,” he told The Times.
Mr Kagame has been invited to attend the next Commonwealth summit as an observer. “I hope they will then approve our membership. I am looking forward to it.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1392750.ecePaul Kagame, the Rwandan President, says that his country will cement its bitter divorce from France and the French-speaking world, which he holds responsible for the 1994 slaughter of up to one million of his countrymen, by joining the Commonwealth later year.
“There are many benefits for us in joining the Commonwealth — cultural, economic, political,” he told The Times.
Mr Kagame has been invited to attend the next Commonwealth summit as an observer. “I hope they will then approve our membership. I am looking forward to it.”
On a serious note. If what Mr. Kagame says is true about our neighbours to the south, the EU should look closely into what the French have been up to.
Originally Posted by :
“The French were obsessed by language,” he said. “I remember when I was invited to Paris in 1992 as part of a peace initiative they were angry I could not talk French.
“That night security agents burst into my hotel room and ‘detained me’, even though I was a guest invited by them.”
Give it up fellas. French stopped being the Lingua Franca hundreds of years ago.“The French were obsessed by language,” he said. “I remember when I was invited to Paris in 1992 as part of a peace initiative they were angry I could not talk French.
“That night security agents burst into my hotel room and ‘detained me’, even though I was a guest invited by them.”
Maybe it helps if they say $orry, but of course it isn't about all that
Surley you are not implying anything are you?
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar:
Surley you are not implying anything are you?
Me nah. Surley you are not implying anything are you?
But it isn't french fault that the tutsi's were the elite, and yes spoke french, and were frenchminded. Ok, maybe a tiny little bit. Hutu's kill tutsi's, and somehow France is to blame, of course.
Rwanda was a German colony first, then a Belgium one ruled by a League of Nations mandate. Never a French one.
France did mess up in the early nineties in Rwanda. What a peculiar mixture of stupidity, malice and neo-colonialism that was.
Of course, unlike the Francophony, the Commonwealth is not at all about bringing and keeping third world countries into any sphere of influence.
Nor would any English speaking country ever even consider supporting any side or dictator in the thirld world to increase their own influence.
France did mess up in the early nineties in Rwanda. What a peculiar mixture of stupidity, malice and neo-colonialism that was.
Of course, unlike the Francophony, the Commonwealth is not at all about bringing and keeping third world countries into any sphere of influence.
Nor would any English speaking country ever even consider supporting any side or dictator in the thirld world to increase their own influence.
Originally Posted by luigi VI di Fatlington:
Nor would any English speaking country ever even consider supporting any side or dictator in the thirld world to increase their own influence.
God forbid. Nor would any English speaking country ever even consider supporting any side or dictator in the thirld world to increase their own influence.
Although I seriously doubt that they would support a genocide just to keep alive the English language.
Originally Posted by luigi VI di Fatlington:
Rwanda was a German colony first, then a Belgium one ruled by a League of Nations mandate. Never a French one.
Rwanda was a German colony first, then a Belgium one ruled by a League of Nations mandate. Never a French one.
This shows once again why British education is going down the drain.The Rwandan Tutsi elite spoke French because they were educated by French-speaking priests from Belgium (Wallonia). In the 1960 and 1994 massacres of Tutsi, Rwandan and Belgian Catholic clerics were haevily implicated on the Hutu side and some of them are prosecuted on genocide charges. The Tutsi fled to neighbouring English-speaking countries who used them to infiltrate and carry out guerilla operations in Rwanda. That is how they came to speak English.
When the French last tried to intervene in the Great Lakes region (Operation Turquoise) to end the worst excesses in and around Zaire, they made some huge mistakes and were consequenty blamed by the English-speaking former colonies in central Africa for everything that went wrong. Kinda like the Americans getting the blame for everything that goes wrong in the Arab world.
Originally Posted by :
This shows once again why British education is going down the drain.
As I left school in 1976 I doubt that applies to moi. This shows once again why British education is going down the drain.
Can they play cricket?
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
Can they play cricket?
Blimey aint you lot had enough of torturing the rest of the cricketing world? Can they play cricket?
What exactly is the function of the commonwealth other than a loose association of English speeking countries that often come together to beat us Brits at every sport we can think of?
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
As I left school in 1976 I doubt that applies to moi.
That must have been the year when the rot set in. As I left school in 1976 I doubt that applies to moi.
J/j of course. I thought a little quid pro quo couldn't hurt. And yes, the French completely blew Turquoise because it was centred on the notion of their French-speaking African inheritance.
Originally Posted by Mithradates:
What exactly is the function of the commonwealth other than a loose association of English speeking countries that often come together to beat us Brits at every sport we can think of?
The Olympics only takes place once every 4 years. The Commonwealth games allows them to humiliate us while they're waiting for the real games. Some of them go one step further and take up cricket so they can trash us every 2 years instead of 4. The French and Italians have surpassed even that by taking up rugby so they can thrash us yearly.What exactly is the function of the commonwealth other than a loose association of English speeking countries that often come together to beat us Brits at every sport we can think of?
The Commonwealth of Nations: A forum where you can bash the Brits as much as you like and the Brits have to grin and bear it. I'm surprised the French haven't joined.
Originally Posted by :
The Commonwealth of Nations: A forum where you can bash the Brits as much as you like and the Brits have to grin and bear it. I'm surprised the French haven't joined.
No need, we're both in the EU...The Commonwealth of Nations: A forum where you can bash the Brits as much as you like and the Brits have to grin and bear it. I'm surprised the French haven't joined.
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
I seriously doubt that they would support a genocide just to keep alive the English language.
Yes, genocide of two continents, human displacements, stimulated mass migration and oppression from Cork to Calcutta played no part in making English the world's lingua franca. I seriously doubt that they would support a genocide just to keep alive the English language.
There is however one thing that bugs me about French linguistic policy though. And that is that they have got it all backwards for three centuries now. First you should impose your economic power, and then they'll take over your language and culture. Language follows power. It's not the other way round like we think. Those grandmasters of imperialism the Anglo-saxons have understood this mechanism better. Or maybe they're simply more practical, less concerned with prestige, pomp and other frenchities.
Anyway, good luck with Ruanda, you can have it. Just don't mention human rights to them - or they'll swap you in turn for the Chinese. Africa has the luxury of choice nowadays.
Originally Posted by luigi VI di Fatlington:
Or maybe they're simply more practical, less concerned with prestige, pomp and other frenchities.
We try, damnit! Or maybe they're simply more practical, less concerned with prestige, pomp and other frenchities.
So could someone inform me as to what the Commonwealth acctually does? I've always been a little hazy on the subject.
Originally Posted by luigi VI di Fatlington:
Anyway, good luck with Ruanda, you can have it. Just don't mention human rights to them - or they'll swap you in turn for the Chinese. Africa has the luxury of choice nowadays.
Anyway, good luck with Ruanda, you can have it. Just don't mention human rights to them - or they'll swap you in turn for the Chinese. Africa has the luxury of choice nowadays.
We were a trading race, everything came from wanting to make money. Being able to communicate with the people who are buying your goods was a major incentive.
I didn't know that the British caused the potato famine.
Gaining this benighted little hole of a Despot Republic is hardly regaining Brittany. Who cares where or what they do?
The Commonwealth was supposed to join countries with a common join in Heritage, and probably to aid in trade and diplomacy.
I didn't know that the British caused the potato famine.
Gaining this benighted little hole of a Despot Republic is hardly regaining Brittany. Who cares where or what they do?
The Commonwealth was supposed to join countries with a common join in Heritage, and probably to aid in trade and diplomacy.
Originally Posted by luigi VI di Fatlington:
Yes, genocide of two continents, human displacements, stimulated mass migration and oppression from Cork to Calcutta played no part in making English the world's lingua franca.
2 continents? Australia (Tazmania especially), yes, if you consider it a continent.Yes, genocide of two continents, human displacements, stimulated mass migration and oppression from Cork to Calcutta played no part in making English the world's lingua franca.
Which other continent have you in mind?
More like 5. North america, Asia, Europe, Oceania, and Africa.
Africa: British rule was FAR better than the rule of the Belgians and the Germans, and the French.
Asia: neutral to positive. Helped many aspects of Indian society (suttee and the Thugs for example). Germans again were renowned for their actions (the Huns)
America: as in the USA: Mainly post independence. Canada seems to have coped without the slaughter. South / Central America is the work of Spanish and Portuguese. Of course if God says to slaughter, that's fine
Asia: neutral to positive. Helped many aspects of Indian society (suttee and the Thugs for example). Germans again were renowned for their actions (the Huns)
America: as in the USA: Mainly post independence. Canada seems to have coped without the slaughter. South / Central America is the work of Spanish and Portuguese. Of course if God says to slaughter, that's fine
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm:
Which other continent have you in mind?
I think the spread of English in North America can to a large extend be attributed to genocide, human displacements and stimulated mass migration.Which other continent have you in mind?
Originally Posted by Rory:
We were a trading race, everything came from wanting to make money.
[...]
I didn't know that the British caused the potato famine.
The British didn't cause the potato disease, but they had a hand in the famine. For a start, with a little less fixation on being a trading race, perhaps the British could've repealed the Corn Laws a bit earlier?We were a trading race, everything came from wanting to make money.
[...]
I didn't know that the British caused the potato famine.
Ah, but this is turning into a debate about the British when the topic is failed French neo-colonial policy in Africa. I'll repeat the old saying that France is like the rapist that married its victim and then keeps on raping and violating her. The day she decides to leave, she strangles her. That is what France did in Rwanda, Congo, Algeria and Cameroun. A million deaths each by the hand of either French genocidaires directly or by an indifferent French policy who's sole interest is a mythical French grandeur.
This is what French African policy amounted to, all the way up to 1995. And cursed be Mitterand, that most cynical of all of France's 'republican monarchs', who did to France's foreign prestige what Bush did for America's.
And now, just when a new more human-rights oriented foreign policy, with an emphasis on the interests of Africa has been in place for a decade, Africa is slipping away.
[/rant]
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
Africa: British rule was FAR better than the rule of the Belgians and the Germans, and the French.
Asia: neutral to positive. Helped many aspects of Indian society (suttee and the Thugs for example). Germans again were renowned for their actions (the Huns)
America: as in the USA: Mainly post independence. Canada seems to have coped without the slaughter. South / Central America is the work of Spanish and Portuguese. Of course if God says to slaughter, that's fine
Sorry, British rule in Africa still stunk, even though their contemporaries stunk more. Asia "neutral to positive"? Laughable. The Americas probably has their best track record, and that is because they were booted out early and the colonists took over their jobs.Africa: British rule was FAR better than the rule of the Belgians and the Germans, and the French.
Asia: neutral to positive. Helped many aspects of Indian society (suttee and the Thugs for example). Germans again were renowned for their actions (the Huns)
America: as in the USA: Mainly post independence. Canada seems to have coped without the slaughter. South / Central America is the work of Spanish and Portuguese. Of course if God says to slaughter, that's fine
Don't get me wrong. I am reaping the rewards of British (and French) colonialism (the Spanish have given me nothing though, that's for the Texans). If I was to decry offensive war for the sake of conquest, it would follow that I would have to leave my home and give it to the indigenous owners. If not, I am a hypocrite. The same can be said of almost anyone, anywhere. Modern nation states are almost all touched with wars of conquest. That being said, I cannot stand it when people try to gloss over their conquests. You cannot hold them to be wrong without decrying your own nation's involvement. There are two options. Affirm that wars of conquest are legitimate or try and gloss over history. The second option is just really weak...
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink:
Sorry, British rule in Africa still stunk, even though their contemporaries stunk more. Asia "neutral to positive"? Laughable. The Americas probably has their best track record, and that is because they were booted out early and the colonists took over their jobs.
Don't get me wrong. I am reaping the rewards of British (and French) colonialism (the Spanish have given me nothing though, that's for the Texans). If I was to decry offensive war for the sake of conquest, it would follow that I would have to leave my home and give it to the indigenous owners. If not, I am a hypocrite. The same can be said of almost anyone, anywhere. Modern nation states are almost all touched with wars of conquest. That being said, I cannot stand it when people try to gloss over their conquests. You cannot hold them to be wrong without decrying your own nation's involvement. There are two options. Affirm that wars of conquest are legitimate or try and gloss over history. The second option is just really weak...
India and Pakistan did quite well out of it. There was a lot more bloodshed before and after the Raj. Neither country would actually exist without Britain either.Sorry, British rule in Africa still stunk, even though their contemporaries stunk more. Asia "neutral to positive"? Laughable. The Americas probably has their best track record, and that is because they were booted out early and the colonists took over their jobs.
Don't get me wrong. I am reaping the rewards of British (and French) colonialism (the Spanish have given me nothing though, that's for the Texans). If I was to decry offensive war for the sake of conquest, it would follow that I would have to leave my home and give it to the indigenous owners. If not, I am a hypocrite. The same can be said of almost anyone, anywhere. Modern nation states are almost all touched with wars of conquest. That being said, I cannot stand it when people try to gloss over their conquests. You cannot hold them to be wrong without decrying your own nation's involvement. There are two options. Affirm that wars of conquest are legitimate or try and gloss over history. The second option is just really weak...
Rule in the USA was no better after independence. Things were a bit more efficient, but the country was still full of slaves and the unfranchised.
Tazmania undoubtably got the worst of it.
Having said that, compared to everyone else Britain did a good job. Lots of countries only have a proper judicial system at all because of the British. There weren't that many massacres, and mostly they were due to incompetant local leaders rather than an overall policy. The dangers of inbreeding and class leading to power. Sigh.
I'm pretty sure the Commonwealth exists to glare harmlessly at Mugabwe for being the most evil ***** currently ruling anywhere.
Originally Posted by BDC:
India and Pakistan did quite well out of it. There was a lot more bloodshed before and after the Raj. Neither country would actually exist without Britain either.
Rule in the USA was no better after independence. Things were a bit more efficient, but the country was still full of slaves and the unfranchised.
Tazmania undoubtably got the worst of it.
Having said that, compared to everyone else Britain did a good job. Lots of countries only have a proper judicial system at all because of the British. There weren't that many massacres, and mostly they were due to incompetant local leaders rather than an overall policy. The dangers of inbreeding and class leading to power. Sigh.
I'm pretty sure the Commonwealth exists to glare harmlessly at Mugabwe for being the most evil ***** currently ruling anywhere.
My point exactly... India and Pakistan did quite well out of it. There was a lot more bloodshed before and after the Raj. Neither country would actually exist without Britain either.
Rule in the USA was no better after independence. Things were a bit more efficient, but the country was still full of slaves and the unfranchised.
Tazmania undoubtably got the worst of it.
Having said that, compared to everyone else Britain did a good job. Lots of countries only have a proper judicial system at all because of the British. There weren't that many massacres, and mostly they were due to incompetant local leaders rather than an overall policy. The dangers of inbreeding and class leading to power. Sigh.
I'm pretty sure the Commonwealth exists to glare harmlessly at Mugabwe for being the most evil ***** currently ruling anywhere.
How many exactly died after that partition set up by Britain in the subcontinent? How many wars did those two countries (created because of the benevolent bounty of Britain) fight after partition because of some odd land dispute that came up when the country was being partitioned? Let's ask those Indians and Pakistanis how they think of their old British rule?
Also, notable omission on China.
Before they go rushing into the arms of China, maybe they should confer with Tibet.....
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink:
My point exactly...
How many exactly died after that partition set up by Britain in the subcontinent? How many wars did those two countries (created because of the benevolent bounty of Britain) fight after partition because of some odd land dispute that came up when the country was being partitioned? Let's ask those Indians and Pakistanis how they think of their old British rule?
Also, notable omission on China.
That would be the partition the British tried to avoid but which the Muslims in particular insisted on because they wanted to be ruled by Muslims?My point exactly...
How many exactly died after that partition set up by Britain in the subcontinent? How many wars did those two countries (created because of the benevolent bounty of Britain) fight after partition because of some odd land dispute that came up when the country was being partitioned? Let's ask those Indians and Pakistanis how they think of their old British rule?
Also, notable omission on China.
Some other things to consider: Official policy was that money made in a province stayed in a province. Official policy was also generally not to muck around with local religion. There were some notable exceptions to the second in India, such as stamping out Thugee and stopping women from being thrown on their husbands' funeral pires.
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall:
That would be the partition the British tried to avoid but which the Muslims in particular insisted on because they wanted to be ruled by Muslims?
Some other things to consider: Official policy was that money made in a province stayed in a province. Official policy was also generally not to muck around with local religion. There were some notable exceptions to the second in India, such as stamping out Thugee and stopping women from being thrown on their husbands' funeral pires.
My point again... This is almost too good to be true.That would be the partition the British tried to avoid but which the Muslims in particular insisted on because they wanted to be ruled by Muslims?
Some other things to consider: Official policy was that money made in a province stayed in a province. Official policy was also generally not to muck around with local religion. There were some notable exceptions to the second in India, such as stamping out Thugee and stopping women from being thrown on their husbands' funeral pires.
This is exactly why so many Indians and Pakistanis remember their rule under the British as the glory days right?
Oh, and though the sectarian groups may have wanted to be separate from each othe, I do know that the British were also quite keen in causing division between the two groups for awhile. I also know that Britain (rightfully so) gets some blame for rushing through the partition and causing that land dispute that has had a couple of wars fought over it...
I'm also sure that the British were nice enough to not exploit their colonies for the wealth and resources they had. After all the purpose of colonies is to spread the English language and help the natives setup nice judicial systems...
Still omitting China...
Do you know what Thugee was?
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall:
Do you know what Thugee was?
No (well I just looked it up). Does it actually matter though, given the context of the discussion and my point?Do you know what Thugee was?
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO