Proud to be British

shadbolt · 27-09-2004, 08:01 AM

I used to be proud to be British. When I read of Nelson "England expects...", the Empire, the abolition of slavery, Concorde (but TSR2 was better) etc.

But I am no longer proud to be British and I strike it from every form I have to fill out and replace it with "English". Being British means nothing, it could mean you come from Pakistan, India, Scotland, be a pagan, Muslim, Buddist, you don't even have to speak English.

No, don't call me British, call me English. It takes more than being born in England to know what that means.

I personally want out of the EU because it is the first step on the road back to Empire. That will raise a contemptuous smirk from many readers but it's only because our people and leaders lack ambition that we have got INTO phpbb_the sorry state we are in now.

Anthony Butcher · 27-09-2004, 05:00 PM

Are you actually advocating a return to an Imperial Britain? I am not sure that it would go down too well with the United Nations.

However, if we had to be in any kind of coalition, we might well be better off allying with emerging nations, such as India.

shadbolt · 27-09-2004, 08:23 PM

Forgive my French, I have no respect for the United Nations, last thing I heard was that Gaddaffi had the roster as the incumbant leader for Human rights. We don't need the UN, scrap it I say.

Anthony Butcher · 27-09-2004, 10:36 PM

I actually agree with you. I think that the day the US and UK invaded Iraq despite the UN, was the beginning of the end. The UN, via Kofi Annan, has declared that the invasion was illegal. And what have they done about it? Nothing. What have they done about the massacres in Darfur? Nothing.

What is the point of an organisation that has no power or will to enforce its rulings?

I am sure that the UN has its uses, but it is no longer a force for world peace. The only thing that the EU might be good for is to act as a counter-balance to US power.

Lafayette · 28-09-2004, 12:06 AM

Quote:

I am sure that the UN has its uses, but it is no longer a force for world peace. The only thing that the EU might be good for is to act as a counter-balance to US power.

I don't think that it is the ambition of the EU to act merely as a counterbalance to US power.

http://www.ukip.org/abc_news/gen12.php?t=1&id=987

They desire to be the power. This is precisely why I do not trust them. Their tone is one of antagonism. European politicians didn't reject the Iraq War over conscience. They did it to help themselves. Everyday we bleed there is a benefit to Brussels.

http://www.thesprout.net/is.htm When this story first broke, the thought was that the EU was using the Palestinians to fight a proxy war with the US via Israel. Those in Europe will say it was necessary since the US is unfairly favoring of Israel and that is their right, but it could also be seen as the EU exploiting the situation to spread their own influence, like Dominique de Villepin travelling the Middle East after the war started and leaving with contracts for French weapons.

Quote:

I actually agree with you. I think that the day the US and UK invaded Iraq despite the UN, was the beginning of the end. The UN, via Kofi Annan, has declared that the invasion was illegal. And what have they done about it? Nothing. What have they done about the massacres in Darfur? Nothing.

What is the point of an organisation that has no power or will to enforce its rulings?

I am in agreement with the both of you as well (cue Chris Patten for a snide remark). The UN has long been as useless as my little toe. Their history of neglect goes back even further than Kosovo. What can be said about an organization where the permanent seats on the security council are determined by the allies of conflict that ended 60 years ago? And the unpleasantness of a year ago only proved that all parties involved in the UN (mine and those who were opposed to mine) are more interested in using the world body more for their own advantage than anything humanitarian. I would be more than happy to see my own country exit the UN, as I am sure would so many Euro-philes, who would be thrilled that it might speed up the move from New York to Gibraltar :wink:

Quote:

we had to be in any kind of coalition, we might well be better off allying with emerging nations, such as India.

Maybe a possible union and later federalization of the Commonwealth? It's far-fetched, but there was a website out there about a year ago devoted to just that. I would be willing to live happily in that world. The United States is in decline. That is just a fact. As I have mentioned, the tone of the EU in all matters concerning the US is one of antagonism sprinkled with condescension. If history serves as an accurate instrument for measuring the future, a superpower centered in Britain or England would leave us alone in our retirement. From 1814 until the end of the Empire, we were left to follow our own pursuits and if in my wildest dreams that could be restored, all would be well. Being that is a most unlikely scenario, Mr. Butcher's idea of coalitions with nations such as India is a good one. Concentrate on Asia. That is where the future economic development of the world lays.

mkpdavies · 29-09-2004, 10:31 PM

The U.N is an outdated farce of an organisation. It needs to be scrapped as it no longer represents the world in any way.

Personaly I thought the reasons for going to war in Iraq were always seriously flawed. A Prime Minister should never put it's citizens in a war situation unless there are VERY good reasons. I personaly would have not sent our troops, but if the USA felt so strongly that Iraq was a problem, then they are more than big enough to deal with it.

France was far to vocal in it's oppostion, but then they had interests to protect.

What the whole shambles did show though is the last thing we need is another layer of government (EU) making the people in charge even more distant from the public. Perhaps Blair has done us a favour.

shadbolt · 30-09-2004, 04:30 PM

mkpdavies questions should we have gone to war. Well actually its one of the few decisions by Tony Blair that i do agree with, and I don't frankly care that his reasons were different to what mine would have been.

I rather like the postboard that an American protestor held at the time, it said "Iraq today, France next!".

bexy · 30-09-2004, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadbolt

I used to be proud to be British. When I read of Nelson "England expects...", the Empire, the abolition of slavery, Concorde (but TSR2 was better) etc.

You are aware of course that not only did the British abolish slavery, they also spent hundreds of years killing thousands of people and ensuring misery for hundreds of thousands as slaves? Did you know that the wealth of the Empire was directly drawn from slavery? Do you know anything of the current political and humanitarian crises across Africa, crises that still stem in many areas from the days of colonialism, of Empire?

Where are you reading about Slavery and Empire that actually makes you proud? I find that repulsive. I know that's strong language, but it's genuinely worrying that you are either so ignorant or so immoral as to not be deeply ashamed of our history in wrecking other people's lives around the world.

LP-2004 · 01-10-2004, 12:54 AM

Bexy, in the same way you criticize shadbolt, were are you learning your history from?

I dont like to wallow in Britains wrong doings, but there is many lives we have changed for the better.

"Do you know anything of the current political and humanitarian crises across Africa, crises that still stem in many areas from the days of colonialism, of Empire?"

where exactly are you talking about? funny enough, some of the most politically stable nations on the african continent were former colonies of the British empire. I would just like to say again that I do not claim all of what britain has done in the past is right, but we take a lot negative comments i dont think we warrant.

It wasnt like when shadbolt refered to the abolition of slavery he meant it in a pro-slavery manner.

Why dont you look at current problems like the sudan crisis in durfur, the human rights violations caused by 'president' mugabe in zimbabwe or the countless civil wars in the african continent instead of looking to the past.

Anthony Butcher · 01-10-2004, 03:12 AM

The British Empire resulted in many benefits for the colonies, giving them a bureaucracy and government that would have taken far longer to establish without the British presence. There is only so long that the former colonies can go on blaming the British for their internal problems. They are responsible for their own government and have been for a long time. In fact, I doubt that they do blame the British at all any more; it is only the imperial apologists who bring the issue up.

There were indeed many negative aspects to the Empire, including slavery in the earlier years, but that doesn't mean that we should forget the positive effects. I think that is is unfair to blame Britain for slavery; that was the normal behaviour at the time, throughout the world, and was certainly present in most areas prior to inclusion in the Empire. Britain, however, was one of the first nations to abolish it and took very strong steps to eradicate it in other nations.

Without the Empire, Europe may well have fallen completely under Nazi control in 1940/41. Indians, Australians, Canadians and many other countries helped to fight against the Axis during the war, long before the USA ever joined in. It was the British Empire and Commonwealth that brought all those nations together. If it had been Britain alone, Operation Sealion may have become a reality.

27-09-2004, 08:01 AM	#1 (permalink)
shadbolt Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Richmond, London Posts: 121	Proud to be British - No! I used to be proud to be British. When I read of Nelson "England expects...", the Empire, the abolition of slavery, Concorde (but TSR2 was better) etc. But I am no longer proud to be British and I strike it from every form I have to fill out and replace it with "English". Being British means nothing, it could mean you come from Pakistan, India, Scotland, be a pagan, Muslim, Buddist, you don't even have to speak English. No, don't call me British, call me English. It takes more than being born in England to know what that means. I personally want out of the EU because it is the first step on the road back to Empire. That will raise a contemptuous smirk from many readers but it's only because our people and leaders lack ambition that we have got INTO phpbb_the sorry state we are in now. __________________ God Bless England

27-09-2004, 08:23 PM	#3 (permalink)
shadbolt Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Richmond, London Posts: 121	Screw the United Nations Forgive my French, I have no respect for the United Nations, last thing I heard was that Gaddaffi had the roster as the incumbant leader for Human rights. We don't need the UN, scrap it I say. __________________ God Bless England

29-09-2004, 10:31 PM	#6 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,615	The U.N is an outdated farce of an organisation. It needs to be scrapped as it no longer represents the world in any way. Personaly I thought the reasons for going to war in Iraq were always seriously flawed. A Prime Minister should never put it's citizens in a war situation unless there are VERY good reasons. I personaly would have not sent our troops, but if the USA felt so strongly that Iraq was a problem, then they are more than big enough to deal with it. France was far to vocal in it's oppostion, but then they had interests to protect. What the whole shambles did show though is the last thing we need is another layer of government (EU) making the people in charge even more distant from the public. Perhaps Blair has done us a favour. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

30-09-2004, 04:30 PM	#7 (permalink)
shadbolt Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Richmond, London Posts: 121	War against Iraq mkpdavies questions should we have gone to war. Well actually its one of the few decisions by Tony Blair that i do agree with, and I don't frankly care that his reasons were different to what mine would have been. I rather like the postboard that an American protestor held at the time, it said "Iraq today, France next!". __________________ God Bless England

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

27-09-2004, 05:00 PM	#2 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 9,538 Party: None	Are you actually advocating a return to an Imperial Britain? I am not sure that it would go down too well with the United Nations. However, if we had to be in any kind of coalition, we might well be better off allying with emerging nations, such as India.

27-09-2004, 10:36 PM	#4 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 9,538 Party: None	I actually agree with you. I think that the day the US and UK invaded Iraq despite the UN, was the beginning of the end. The UN, via Kofi Annan, has declared that the invasion was illegal. And what have they done about it? Nothing. What have they done about the massacres in Darfur? Nothing. What is the point of an organisation that has no power or will to enforce its rulings? I am sure that the UN has its uses, but it is no longer a force for world peace. The only thing that the EU might be good for is to act as a counter-balance to US power.

01-10-2004, 12:54 AM	#9 (permalink)
LP-2004 Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: merseyside, uk. Posts: 160	Bexy, in the same way you criticize shadbolt, were are you learning your history from? I dont like to wallow in Britains wrong doings, but there is many lives we have changed for the better. "Do you know anything of the current political and humanitarian crises across Africa, crises that still stem in many areas from the days of colonialism, of Empire?" where exactly are you talking about? funny enough, some of the most politically stable nations on the african continent were former colonies of the British empire. I would just like to say again that I do not claim all of what britain has done in the past is right, but we take a lot negative comments i dont think we warrant. It wasnt like when shadbolt refered to the abolition of slavery he meant it in a pro-slavery manner. Why dont you look at current problems like the sudan crisis in durfur, the human rights violations caused by 'president' mugabe in zimbabwe or the countless civil wars in the african continent instead of looking to the past.

01-10-2004, 03:12 AM	#10 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 9,538 Party: None	The British Empire resulted in many benefits for the colonies, giving them a bureaucracy and government that would have taken far longer to establish without the British presence. There is only so long that the former colonies can go on blaming the British for their internal problems. They are responsible for their own government and have been for a long time. In fact, I doubt that they do blame the British at all any more; it is only the imperial apologists who bring the issue up. There were indeed many negative aspects to the Empire, including slavery in the earlier years, but that doesn't mean that we should forget the positive effects. I think that is is unfair to blame Britain for slavery; that was the normal behaviour at the time, throughout the world, and was certainly present in most areas prior to inclusion in the Empire. Britain, however, was one of the first nations to abolish it and took very strong steps to eradicate it in other nations. Without the Empire, Europe may well have fallen completely under Nazi control in 1940/41. Indians, Australians, Canadians and many other countries helped to fight against the Axis during the war, long before the USA ever joined in. It was the British Empire and Commonwealth that brought all those nations together. If it had been Britain alone, Operation Sealion may have become a reality.