Speaking of Israel...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We invented your democracy - you're welcome...

Not completely, but certainly the idea that a public forum for debate was good and that a bicameral legislature was useful for checks and balances were stolen from your "Mother of Parliaments." A lot of the rest was cribbed from Republican Rome with a dash of romanticized ancient Greece. Jemmy loved the classics.

We pretty much owe you the entirety of our system of jurisprudence though. I am happy however, that I don't have to see our Personal Injury Lawyers wearing perukes in their advertisements. Morgan & Morgan and Pendas ads are bad enough as things stand.

All-in-all, a "thanks" is appropriate.

There ARE times I wish we had imported the Questions session your Commons uses. All for holding the Executives feet to the metaphorical fire a bit. Of course, you do have those expensive but smoothly decorative royals that can handle some of the silly ceremonial duties that choke our President's schedule -- gives the PM a few hours a week where she/he can be grilled.

[Papewaio]

It's not too late to become a Commonwealth country. Considering that the rest of the five eye nations are...

[Noncommunist]

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.

But we made it actually include people that weren't the 1%. Sure, it took a while to include just about everybody but it was a good bit faster than over on that side of the pond.

Once industrialization hit, the most powerful people weren't the slave owners and they could actually listen to their conscience on that issue instead of stuffing their ears with money.

We may have done that but we didn't set up the entire situation by conquering some large chunk of the Middle East.

Mandela and Klerk saved South Africa from being a repeat of Liberia/preview of Zimbabwe, not some magic British voodoo influence.

They managed to live okay when they were ruled by the Sikhs. And when they were running the show under the Mughals, they did show a fair bit of religious tolerance.