Bottom line is they invented concentration camps. Hardly a justification for killing people in concentration camps. Even if you want to disregard this, there are all sorts of massacres by the British.
Bottom line is they invented concentration camps. Hardly a justification for killing people in concentration camps. Even if you want to disregard this, there are all sorts of massacres by the British.
I'm talking about the entire scope of history.
The British empire was extremely brutal. I'm not saying that the US has never been brutal, but the British were horrific. Most of the colonial powers were horrific.
The US had concentrations camps before the Boer War: They were called Indian Reserves. The same concept however.
The US was a colonial power. We took the lands in the west did we not? We wiped out the natives did we not?
Yes. But you don't want to bring up treatment of natives while talking about how nice and wonderful the British as that actually hurts your argument.
Well we disagree. I think the British were far worse. They were all over the world all while doing many of the things that the US did and worse. Not to mention that many of the problems today are rooted from British colonialism.
I will repeat:
If the Empire was so damned evil than why haven't many former colonies moved to isolate themselves from Britain and the Commonwealth? Why did India fight so hard to remain in the Commonwealth after becoming a republic? Why is the Queen so damned popular in Africa that on her tours there people show in the thousands waving British flags and tribal Chief's declare her as their paramount leader? Why?
You have not answered these questions. These are evidence that the British Empire did do some good in the world? I'm not a big fan of the Empire. If you want to argue with someone who loves the empire you should meet my friend from Nigeria. He's african and he's the biggest damned imperilaist I have ever seen. He feels that things have gone downhill in Nigeria since the British left.
There is a good book you might want to read about the end of the empire. Its called End of Empire. It provides a good history of the move to self governance in many of the former colonies.
I'm know that most of people in Hong Kong miss the British. Hell of a lot better than the Chinese government.
If the Empire was so damned evil than why haven't many former colonies moved to isolate themselves from Britain and the Commonwealth? Why did India fight so hard to remain in the Commonwealth after becoming a republic? Why is the Queen so damned popular in Africa that on her tours there people show in the thousands waving British flags and tribal Chief's declare her as their paramount leader? Why?
You have not answered these questions. These are evidence that the British Empire did do some good in the world? I'm not a big fan of the Empire. If you want to argue with someone who loves the empire you should meet my friend from Nigeria. He's african and he's the biggest damned imperilaist I have ever seen. He feels that things have gone downhill in Nigeria since the British left.
There is a good book you might want to read about the end of the empire. Its called End of Empire. It provides a good history of the move to self governance in many of the former colonies.
I'm know that most of people in Hong Kong miss the British. Hell of a lot better than the Chinese government.
The Germans were damn evil. I see people generally forgiving them, don't you? Or do you spit in a German's face when you see him/her? And that was far more recent than some of these incidents. Hardly a sign that any nation was not evil at one point.
In addition, belonging in the Commonwealth has/had benefits, some economic.
Yes, the British did good things as well. I'm not sure why you think I'm denying it. However, it is also resulted in a hell of a lot of 'evil'.
I have. I felt as you did until I started reading about it. And I find that there are a lot of allegations that just are not backed up by the facts.
Nope. That is why judges should not be elected and that is why I have no beef with the Monarchy and the appointed Senate in Canada. It helps prevent mobocracy. If it were not for the unelected US Supreme Court, de jure segregation would still exit in the US. But I have no idealogicall beef with the monarchy it is not bad. Slavery is bad because it inherently denies people of their liberties which is not the case with the Monarchy.
If someone were elected then he would be a politicion which would be self defeating because they would then actively use the prerogatives for partisan purposes. (as was the case in Trinidad and Tobago.)
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I like calling any monarch's representatives or employees their minions
Well in that case I guess all civil servents are minions. They have to take oaths of loyalty to the Queen in Canada and the UK.
As for the Quebec issue, the monarchy is not the issue. In fact, Jacques Parizeau, the premier of Quebec and Parti Quebecois leader who spearheaded the '95 referendum on independence was himself a monarchist who believed that an independent Quebec should still keeep the Queen as its head of state.
I'm not too sure about that. I think he's only publicly mused on that. The party also refused to allow a message to be sent to the Queen because it called all Canadians subjects of the queen. Also, let's not forget about the anti-monarchy riots and mass demonstrations.
1. To make policy based upon the actions of violent mobs would be the very mobacracy (mob rule) which you claim to oppose.
2. Several hundreds of people does not qualify as a mass demonstration.
I'm not sure if I've said I oppose mob rule. In a way, many things are governed by mob rule in all democracies. I did state that mob rule shouldn't dictate in discriminatory cases though, such as what happened in Slovenia.
To quote you:
When your argument runs down to mob rule, you know you're running out of ideas
Well are you running out of ideas?
What should they dictate then?
Who decides what is discrimination and what isn't?
The mob perhaps?
Yes, I think when you are listing reasons on why you support something and then you finally resort to mob rule as a reasons, it means you're probably out of ideas. Especially when the topic at hand is discriminatory. If the people want slavery, you do not give them slavery. If the people want their head of state to have all of these discriminatory requirements, they shouldn't have it.
If the President's wife had to be Buddhist, written in law, would you support it if the majority of people wanted it?
Funny the religious situation of the Queen is not as straight forward as you might think.
When in England she is in communion with the Church of England (Anglican),
whilst in Scotland she is in communion with the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian)
Should a monarch who is head of state church be Catholic? Probably not.
Should that monarch be Jewish as I am? Probably not. And I don't feel discriminated against.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
-
Facebook
Twitter