Reverse Robin Hood: English 'Queen' tries to steal from the poor - Page 2

No, Concentration Camps were invented during the Second Boer War.

What Hitler initially wanted to do with the Jewish populace was displace them, and send them elsewhere. I think they toyed with sending them all to Madagascar, it was only when relocation became untenable that they decided on the Final Solution.

Monstrous, yes.

Genocide, no.

Like you said, it was for profit more than anything else. They murdered people because they were in the way, not because they held a grudge against those specific people.

I know it's correct, because I've spent the last six years studying history.

It's like having a debate with a wall, a really stupid wall that might have Down's Syndrome.

Holy fuck, this thread.

Indian reservation may pre-date the Boer War but the idea for Concentration Camps came from the Boer War.

America and Canada can claim no moral high ground in terms of camps because of the German and Japanese Internment Camps. No one was being gassed or tortured but taking away the rights of true citizens because of their country of origin (or worse the country of origin of their parents) is pretty fucked up.

Not any girl can become Queen but that's pretty fucking irrelevant to the point as she has no real power in the Commonwealth.

The Irish Famine was mostly caused by the British but also by the short sightedness of farmers who refused to understand that a single crop economy is just plain fucking dumb.

And Kate you read history, you don't understand it.

War is not a vacation Kate.

Concentration camps pre-date the Boer War. They were used by the brutal General Valeriano Weyler in the Spanish-American War some time around 1895. IIRC, he put over half a million Cuban peasants into the camps and over one fifth never emerged.

The reality is dictators have been herding enemies of the state into some style of long-term confinement for thousands of years. It's only via semantic engineering that such are disqualified as concentration camps.

Okay, but I still take issue with describing Indian Reservations as concentration camps, and I think it's fair to say that post-World War II, that term has a far different meaning than it did prior to it. Hence why we call them 'Japanese Internment Camps.'

I love irony.

It's neither jingoism nor offensive if he's stating an opinion, you semantics-loving bleach-stained loon.

I'm not entirely sure but it might still be illegal to mention the Armenian Genocide in Turkey. Indeed, the genocide itself has only recently been recognised.

It's sobering to think that the Germans actually had observers enmeshed within the entire killing apparatus.

Had the world admitted the tragedy from the start perhaps its steroid-enhanced successor might have been averted.

Boy I sure didn't miss ElCaptainAmerica.

Lighten up, fellow yanks.

Meanwhile, enjoy something cheeky that suddenly seems fitting for this thread.

They should replace her with pictures of the Beatles and Dr Who! "The Troughton Fiver!" It just rolls off the tongue!

Oh, and yes the US Congress recently voted down a resolution declaring the slaughter of the Armenians in Turkey in WWI as Genocide...thanks to the Turkish Lobbies.

German observers ...observed the atrocities in Turkey, the Boar War and the Spanish Civil War (I believe the Luftwaffe actually flew missions for the Fascists during the later) and incorporated a lot of what they saw into the Final Solution.

Jesus, this thread has gone to hell in a hand basket.

But, when in Rome... I still don't understand why we need a resolution declaring the Armenian genocide a genocide. Wasn't it already established by the United Nations as such? What benefit is it for the United States Congress to bring up someone else's misdeeds?

I miss you too man.

hahaha

this thread is awesome.

I wish I had a picture of PK so I could photoshop her in Liberty Leading The People.

This'll do.

This is entirely incorrect. There were plenty of different kinds of crops grown in Ireland, but colonialist laws pushed the cottars to the worst lands where only potatoes could be grown, while the fertile land used for wider varieties of crops and grazing were controlled by the rich landowners. Thus, in the midst of the Famine, which was obviously catastrophic and people were dying in the streets from starvation, there were great harvests from the other crops that were still being grown in the country. But these were all simply shipped to England, denied to the starving, and those who stole crops to feed themselves were arrested and shipped to Australia. See: The Fields Of Athenry, Trevelyan's Corn.

They knew exactly what they were doing. There are letters from members of Parliament at the time who thought the mass starvation was a great opportunity to open up even more land for grazing the landowners' cattle.

Pretty much. It wasn't a famine, it was opportunistic mass fucking murder pure and simple.

It was both really, the blight was at play throughout Europe but in Ireland it was willfully mismanaged.

Jonathan Swift suggested selling their children as food in order to reduce population and bring in extra revenue as a satirical reflection of this mismanagement.

Yet it still wasn’t genocide.

I’ll be the first to admit that Britain, especially during Colonialism, was an opportunistic monster who dominated the world through butchery and sheer force of will. However as bad as the British were, what we did was opportunistic. There was never a decision to try and wipe out an entire populace because we disliked them on moral/ethical grounds.

We just steam rolled people whoever got in our way. I mean the Opium Wars essentially made us an international drug dealer for a good half century.

One of the fascinating things I find about England, as a nation, is that we sort of wallow in our past sins. Or at least allow ourselves to be reminded of those sins. At school we’re taught of the evils of colonialism, our neighbours go out of their way to remind us of our respective sins against the Scottish and Irish. I don’t know if it’s just a part of the English character to accept this past.

I actually chose my words quite deliberately, but just because it wasn't genocide doesn't mean it's not a black mark on the history of the Empire.

I know, I was just continuing to make the point. I hate people using easy, emotive, words like that. It's incorrect usage and there's no need for such exploitative language when you're dealing with a subject as raw as Colonialism.

Now, to make you hate me, one of the subjects I'm studying in depth this year is Colonialism and I'm taking a vested interest in positive reactions to colonialism, both at home and abroad, and positive things which occured because of colonialism.

No-one's arguing otherwise, Empires tend to be fuckheads.

Oh Kate, you had me at "there is more to the bad blood between our people and the English than simply the tea tax and the Boston massacre."

That's why we rescued the Empire in WW's I & II. So we could have our eventual revenge all to ourselves!

Thats also why at the height of his power (during the Bonsian crisis) most Americans would have elected Tony Blair as president in a heartbeat.

And then there is the "Special Relationship" our countries have shared for years.

And the fact you station Nuclear weapons in our teritory.

I could go on but I won't.

Shhhhhhh, don't tell those crumpet-munching bastards ahead of time!

I miss being able to have discussions without people feeling obliged to go all stand-up.

Irish should have learned to fish mirite

Yeah, to one day SECRETLY EXPLODE THEM HAHAHAHAH

edit: oops, sorry Spike. I'll now retire from message board comedy.

Oh, Spike, always the curmudgeonly bastard. Apologies. Carry on.

You have to admit this discussion hasn't been very productive. You can either get upset at PK's rather askewed stances on historical perspective, or you can laugh!

Personally, though, every day I wake up I shake my fist at a google maps image of Britain over that damn tea tax.

Also, war is a lovely way to spend a vacation. Bring me back some PTSD from the gift shop.

Wasn't the tea tax actually fairly reasonable? And the Boston Massacre was not only barely a massacre, but at least partially instigated by the colonists rioting? And of those tried for it, most of them were acquitted by a jury of colonists?

I don't know though, I'm not exactly an expert on American history.

After being represented by John Adams no less!

If memory and a really superficial understanding of US history serves, which around here I am sure doesn't, it wasn't the financial impact of the tax, but the fact that it represented a poorly timed imposition by Parliament on the colony and was administered by dastardly cads twirling moustaches and sacrificing virgins to Satan disguised as freemasons. Or were the freemasons on the other side? I forget.

Anyway I think the problem was also exacerbated by the triumphalism and provocative justifications publicised by the Brits (yay, go us) which when filtered filtered through to the educated and already narked colonial establishment pushed them over the edge.

There was also a lot of parochial bad blood in Boston that had built up over previous slights, if I recall.

Or have I got that completely wrong?

I see. He must have hated America.

@jhp1608: Any idea how accurate this cracked.com article is? I know, cracked, but I heard it was actually pretty accurate.

pS I am weirdly proud that a few Brits stuck up for HM. I figured she'd be an easy mark round here, but I'm glad that there are a few voices who share my feelings that given the low nature of most elected representatives I have personal or public knowledge of, I'd happily continue with a hereditary Head of State compromised by her/his constitutional position. Besides, you never know when we might need them to lead an armed resistance against parliamentary dictatorship again. Nice to have a few eggs rolling round the basket.

We're already skating along the extremities of my knowledge, so I won't pretend to have a critical opinion of that article - other than to say it reads like each point may have a kernel of truth warped to the point of losing almost all credibility for the sake of comic effect.

That said, I have read elsewhere that Franklin was a conflicted character and it is highly likely that with communications being of a quality we can't even begin to comprehend that perceptions at Westminster may well have been vastly alien from the truth on the ground in the colonies. I had thought though that there was awareness of how badly other legislation had been received and I think I've read some of the Hansard extracts (transcripts of UK parliamentary debate which I think existed even then) from the tea and similar debates that indicated there was an element of vindictiveness about the imposition.

As an aside, Franklin is my favourite of the founding fathers. Signatory of the Declaration of Independence? check. Member of the Hellfire Club? Check. Invented lightning conductors? Check. Real shame the modern world doesn't incentivise an education that encourages that kind of polymath.

I like William, from what I've seen of him, and Harry even more. And good on Liz and her tribe for bringing in the tourist dollars. I don't have anything against them personally (no matter how much of an ignorant buffoon Phil The Greek may appear to be). These days, with a minimum of power in the Commonwealth, they're almost just another uber-rich celebrity family.

But there's a fundamental perversion to royalty in that one is born into it, and as long as a single tax dollar or pound goes to the royal family it will be under that perversion. I'm not saying the American governmental machine, or any other, is better overall, but that particular aspect of monarchies is a weak point for me.

I love a lot of things about Britain, and Brits, and I'm glad that Britain has long been one of our closest allies, and long may that continue. But if we ever get our shit together enough to vote on republicanism vs monarchy (as the Aussies did a few years back), I'll be choosing to, as they say, cut the apron strings and vote for republicanism.

Do you really thing this thread deserves a serious discussion?

I'd hope everyone decrying a Monarchist system based on inheritance are Warren Buffett fans? (I know I am, but that's because he pays my Dad's wages and I want some of that loot)

Britian has a lot of flaws but the Monarchy aint one of them.

I think you mean "Monarchy".

I think you are right, curse my dyslexia.

Your food is however.

Actually cooking is a big passtime in the UK nowadays, mostly due to all the cooking shows we have over here.

So you have entire shows dedicated to cooking with mint sauce?