Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What does the British Empire encapsulate for you? Is it the eppitomy of Imperial power? Or do you think otherwise?
Your thoughts....

it once was a large empire, a tyrannic empire, now the commonwealth are just a shadow of the past

Originally posted by finti
it once was a large empire, a tyrannic empire, now the commonwealth are just a shadow of the past

A dreadful shame that it had to finish. What makes you think it was tyrannic?

since it took over countries , which at the time had no way to stop them and then used the countries denizens as slaves. i believe that falls into the tyrannical category , don't you.

Well, I'll repeat ahain what I said in the other thread...

People have this vision of a vast Biritsh army going around conquering the world for the glory of the Monarchy and imposing despotism everywhere they went.

THis is a massive distortion of the truth- which is not to say that the Empire was not a tool of oppression.

But the main error is in the envisaging of that army. Britain did not have a large army. In fact it had a tiny army, in any comparison to other powers in the world. It would have been actively impossible to run the Empire on military power. Britain's forceful strength was naval, which enabaled it to keep the Empire connected and to ward off the attentions of rivals, but you can't conquer the world with boats.

The British Empire was, in fact, a greed-ridden preferential trading block. It maintained control in collusion with local authorities, rather than trying to conquer all of them, which would have been silly. It was a very simple deal; we would bring some troops over, talk to the local bigwigs, discuss with them about how much richer they would be if they worked with us, left the troops there to protect our interests, and bingo, more pink on the map.

Just look at how big India is, and how many people are there, and compare it to the 10000 or so troops we had available for disbursment there, and you have to very quickly abandon the logic of an Empire held together by force.

It was all money- everyone was in it to get rich. And by bringing in money it also brought in a lot of development and advancment for the nations concerned, and of course plenty of suffering and oppression to those that stood in the way of the cash flow.

When the money failed, the Empire did. And that was that.

Originally posted by finti
it once was a large empire, a tyrannic empire, now the commonwealth are just a shadow of the past

Tyrannic was the method of expanding empire... The occupation of areas was , in fact, not tyrannic... In fact, the central beliefs and ideologies of the Empire were 'freedom, fraternity and federation' all three of which are commonly misinterpreted as oppressive factors. They are features which promote a sense of enterprise in a community and furthers its development.

By the way, we abolished slavery within the empire in 1810.

oh what a bomb that british wont look at it as tyrannic......the occupants looked down on those occupied beside the fact of a military presence. They controlled the contries by force

Freedom? Fraternity? Tell that to the indigenous peoples of every nation colonised during the expansion of the British Empire.

EDIT: Oh and btw the slave trade may have been criminalised but slavery was not abolished until the mid 1830s and continued in the guise of "indentured servitude" until the 1920s.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Freedom? Fraternity? Tell that to the indigenous peoples of every nation colonised during the expansion of the British Empire.

EDIT: Oh and btw the slave trade may have been criminalised but slavery was not abolished until the mid 1830s and continued in the guise of "indentured servitude" until the 1920s.

Freedom and fraternity within the empire. They enjoyed so much freedom with the British than with the evil governments that they had before. The politics of the Empire allowed individuals to lead their own lives without hinderence (sp), also it gave them a sense of safety... the insane governments prior to empire ripped people of their privacy and freedom.

So you think that British rule replaced the "evil" and "insane" self-governance of the Australian Aborigines and gave them "freedom and fraternity"? Seriously what are you ? That's gotta be quality sh*t if it gives you such vivid delusions of grandeur.

the colonies???

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
So you think that British rule replaced the "evil" and "insane" self-governance of the Australian Aborigines and gave them "freedom and fraternity"? Seriously what are you ? That's gotta be quality sh*t if it gives you such vivid delusions of grandeur.

Look at the African colonies... tyranny, terror and evil was replaced with the three 'f's I was talking about earlier. Of couirse there'll be exceptions.. Australlia for example. But Britain spread her mark throughout the world and without it- we'd all be in a deplorable state.

and why would we all be in a deplorable state???

Originally posted by finti
and why would we all be in a deplorable state???

Think about it.... No United States, Canada, Australlia, New Zealand, South Africa as wealthy states... no world economy... increased poverty... The world will not have moved forward or progressed at all!

Canada, United States?, what about all the settelers from other countries like Spain, France the Dutch hey even sweden settled Norht America, If the colonies hadnt fallen under British control they would most likely been French. South Africa well other nations was keen on that area as well, settled by the Dutch first, and the dutch guild league
are you serious or just ignorant???????????????? You think the world progressed just because of Britain?

Originally posted by Britannia
Think about it.... No United States, Canada, Australlia, New Zealand, South Africa as wealthy states... no world economy... increased poverty... The world will not have moved forward or progressed at all! In other words instead of white people being in control of the world's wealth and resources... shock! horror! people of other races might... and the world would be an awful place to live in because of it?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
In other words instead of white people being in control of the world's wealth and resources... shock! horror! people of other races might... and the world would be an awful place to live in because of it?

Don't be ridiculous. You know that I didn't mean that. The technology and idea of enterprise etc would not have been spread around the world, thus making it less developed.

and you believe the Brits were the only one able to travell

Originally posted by finti
Canada, United States?, what about all the settelers from other countries like Spain, France the Dutch hey even sweden settled Norht America, If the colonies hadnt fallen under British control they would most likely been French. South Africa well other nations was keen on that area as well, settled by the Dutch first, and the dutch guild league
are you serious or just ignorant???????????????? You think the world progressed just because of Britain?

No, but I think that Britain had a pivetal roll in world development. Fair comment, but these countries didn't have the same sort of ideologies as the British... who can say what the world would be like if there had been a French Empire the size of the British Empire? *shudders*

Originally posted by finti
and you believe the Brits were the only one able to travell

No? Where have I said that?

Originally posted by Britannia
Don't be ridiculous. You know that I didn't mean that. The technology and idea of enterprise etc would not have been spread around the world, thus making it less developed.
It seemed as if it was somewhat implied. Besides the spread of technology doesn't require conquest, annexation of land and subjugation of people.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It seemed as if it was somewhat implied. Besides the spread of technology doesn't require conquest, annexation of land and subjugation of people.

Please tell me where it was implied. I would just like to get this cleared up because I am not a racist (which was somewhat implied.)

In those days, spreading information and technology did require such extremes. Today, with the internet etc. information can be transfered across the world with the click of a button.

they had a role alright just like others had a role if it was more pivotal than others at THAT time maybe.

no one cant, cause French was the losers of the conflicts in Northern America and on the European continent so they didnt get to write the history, it is always the victorious ones version we get...and this time the French were the "baddies"

. what ideology?, to make the world British??


you kind of implied it with

it required trade routes

Originally posted by Britannia
In those days, spreading information and technology did require such extremes. Today, with the internet etc. information can be transfered across the world with the click of a button.

They were tyrannical.....Do you really understand the history?...Spain, Italy, Portugal, everyone was exploring.....England just wanted it all.

Kinda like a vicious UN of today...

But me just watch...eat

Originally posted by Britannia
Think about it.... No United States, Canada, Australlia, New Zealand, South Africa as wealthy states... no world economy... increased poverty... The world will not have moved forward or progressed at all!
The underlying presumption being that if the Native Americans, Inuit, Aborigines, Maori, and Africans had retained self-governance, control of their land and resources the world would be horrible.
It never happened so it's impossible to tell what would have happened. And you didn't start this thread arguing whether or not it was necessary to conquer, you were arguing it was a good thing.

Originally posted by finti
they had a role alright just like others had a role if it was more pivotal than others at THAT time maybe.

no one cant, cause French was the losers of the conflicts in Northern America and on the European continent so they didnt get to write the history, it is always the victorious ones version we get...and this time the French were the "baddies"

. what ideology?, to make the world British??


you kind of implied it with
I have said this time and time again, the British wanted to spread freedom and fraternity... that was the central pillar which supported the empire. By making the world 'British' as you put it, these values would be spread throughout the world.

I don't quie understand what you're trying to say here...

"no one cant, cause French was the losers of the conflicts in Northern America and on the European continent so they didnt get to write the history, it is always the victorious ones version we get...and this time the French were the "baddies""

Face it... Britain changed the world for the better. And it would not be the same world without the Empire.

Originally posted by debbiejo
They were tyrannical.....Do you really understand the history?...Spain, Italy, Portugal, everyone was exploring.....England just wanted it all.

Kinda like a vicious UN of today...

But me just watch...eat

Please don't patronise. Yes, I understand the history. England didn't want anything... Britain did, do you really know the history?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The underlying presumption being that if the Native Americans, Inuit, Aborigines, Maori, and Africans had retained self-governance, control of their land and resources the world would be horrible.
It never happened so it's impossible to tell what would have happened. And you didn't start this thread arguing whether or not it was necessary to conquer, you were arguing it was a good thing.

These places, not as a result of the people's race, were not advancing- for reasons unknown. The British Empire DID advance these places technologically and economically.

By the way, threads do tend to go off on tagents...

no they didnt, the American revolution brought us democracy and then came the French revolution. That the world wouldnt be the same, of course not if Britain hadnt vaccumed its colonise for natural resources maybe the could have done it themselves and been in a better off state now

it means since they were the looser all that was French was kind of bad and vicious and dictator like

dont fool yourself, the brits wanted to expand their empire to gain access to certain nesesarry commodoties since being an island couldnt provide them with all these. Their expansions was to gain wealth to the empire, to gain territory and land mass,numbers of countries/nation under control of one authority

I suggest you go read some though and the others colonial powers didnt progress these terrotories tey controled???

Originally posted by finti
no they didnt, the American revolution brought us democracy and then came the French revolution. That the world wouldnt be the same, of course not if Britain hadnt vaccumed its colonise for natural resources maybe the could have done it themselves and been in a better off state now


America? Remind me.... how did America become populated? How did the revolution start? Would there have been a revolution? No.
We did more than simply collect natural resources.

Originally posted by finti
I suggest you go read some though and the others colonial powers didnt progress these terrotories tey controled???

Yes, they did. But they didn't control 1/4 of the earth's surface, did they?

You can't argue with historical facts... you keep immplying that other colonial powers would have done what Britain did anyway... but how do you know?!

Originally posted by Britannia
These places, not as a result of the people's race, were not advancing- for reasons unknown. The British Empire DID advance these places technologically and economically.

By the way, threads do tend to go off on tagents...
No, settlers imposed themselves on indigenous peoples - while bringing diseases, enslaving them, taking their land, directly killing them and attempting to supplant their culture with your own.
You go on and on about how the British Empire was so great and wonderful and lovely and brought freedom - frankly it wasn't and it didn't.

it was colonized by EUROPEAN countries, of course since they ruled over it the majority was of british desent yet, people of many nations fought for the independence of the colonies


the politics of the brits toward the colonies led to the revolution, but the idea of a democrasy was already alive in France, so it is good to see a brit claiming the the independent of USA as work of the British.......the work they did was they drove the colonial to seek independence

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
No, settlers imposed themselves on indigenous peoples - while bringing diseases, enslaving them, taking their land, directly killing them and attempting to supplant their culture with your own.
You go on and on about how the British Empire was so great and wonderful and brought freedom - frankly it wasn't and it didn't.

Slavery- abolished 1810.
Bringing diseases- So do the tourists of today...
Taking Land- We promoted private land ownership
Culture- We endorsed a variety of faths... In each colony the religion was never banned.

Originally posted by finti
it was colonized by EUROPEAN countries, of course since they ruled over it the majority was of british desent yet, people of many nations fought for the independence of the colonies


the politics of the brits toward the colonies led to the revolution, but the idea of a democrasy was already alive in France, so it is good to see a brit claiming the the independent of USA as work of the British.......the work they did was they drove the colonial to seek independence

No, the French idea was killing the wealthy and calling it a 'revolution'.

how much they controlled is a diffrent matter all together, it is what they did whith what they posessed that is the matter here

they did in the colonies they had, why do you think they faced revolutions against them as well................ and if one of the other colonial powers controled what is now usa it might have ended differently than it did with hte british rule there and USA would be several different nations

that was not the idea that was what it turned into

Originally posted by Britannia
Slavery- abolished 1810.
Bringing diseases- So do the tourists of today...
Taking Land- We promoted private land ownership
Culture- We endorsed a variety of faths... In each colony the religion was never banned.
Slave trade was abolished in 1807.
Slavery continued for another 3 decades; and then further after that under the guise of indentured servitude.
"In 1770, Captain James Cook took possession of the east coast of Australia and named it New South Wales in the name of Great Britain. The Aboriginal population was decimated by British colonisation which began in 1788, when news of the land's fertility spread to Europeans causing them to begin settling in the Aboriginal land. A combination of disease, loss of land (and thus food resources) and direct violence reduced the Aboriginal population by an estimated 90% during the 19th century and early 20th century. A wave of massacres and resistance followed the frontier. The last recorded massacre was at Coniston in the Northern Territory in 1928. Poisoning of food and water has been recorded on several different occasions."
Missionaries endorsed one faith - their faith.

Yeah, America started a Revolution first because of policies and over taxation without representation....the French followed suite seeing that it worked here....That worried other Monarchies.

We went to France for help...I think we sent Benjamin Franklin...to beggggggggg..

What Empire ever allowed a nationality within its Imperial nationality
to exist and flourish? No other Empire but that of Great Britain (Applause)

well the colonise used the work of French writers , writings that started a process that led to the french revolution, these processes started just as early as the colonial ones, difference was that the colonial fought to be a sovereign nation, while the french fought for freedom and sovereignty of the people with in their own nation

and which one are we talking about here??? and the Roman Empire gave regional control to its provinces

Even after the Revolution....Britain didn't consider it a loss...they started up again with the war of 1812.....Where we got our famous song....

Funny in the kings diary on the day of the Revolution is said "Nothing much happened today"....He was soooooooo unaware.

and that the mail travveled slow

Originally posted by finti
and that the mail travveled slow

Yep... ...He didn't think a bunch of farmers were capable enough to do any damage against the Brits......He wasn't worried....

Originally posted by debbiejo
They were tyrannical.....Do you really understand the history?...Spain, Italy, Portugal, everyone was exploring.....England just wanted it all.

Kinda like a vicious UN of today...

But me just watch...eat

Sorry, I don't quite get that one. The implication is that the other three were not interested in Colonial Empire building... which could not be more wrong. Especially with the Spanish.

I'll repeat again, the British Empire was not, and could not be, held together by force. Even if it was capable of shooting anyone who disagreed- which it was not- if it had have done it would have perished very quickly indeed.

What killed the Spanish Empire was such reliance on purely military means, in fact.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yep... ...He didn't think a bunch of farmers were capable enough to do any damage against the Brits......He wasn't worried....

No, he didn't think a bunch of rich landowners would be so set against not biting into their profit margins that they would object to paying less for tea.

But anyone with any brains knew that if any of our colonial possessions outright decided to go independant the chances of stopping them were tiny; we did not have the military power to effectively fight such a war (or, in the case of the US, much of a will to do it either).

The horribly botched way that war was conducted was not atypical.

well they tried too but couldnt

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Sorry, I don't quite get that one. The implication is that the other three were not interested in Colonial Empire building... which could not be more wrong. Especially with the Spanish.

I'll repeat again, the British Empire was not, and could not be, held together by force. Even if it was capable of shooting anyone who disagreed- which it was not- if it had have done it would have perished very quickly indeed.

What killed the Spanish Empire was such reliance on purely military means, in fact.

Spain was in on it tooo....But Spain settled first more south in Mexico, and the Islands and South America....Spain just got a later start.

Spain had a vast Empire out there two centuries before the British Empire was a going concern. It was huge and rich beyond comprehension- and far more notably oppressive and barbaric towards Natives.

Whom, it must be remembered, the British were relatively easy going with, compared with many others.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, he didn't think a bunch of rich landowners would be so set against not biting into their profit margins that they would object to paying less for tea.


Most of the people that fought in that war were typical farmers..And it was more then just for the tea........They wanted the land....

Originally posted by debbiejo
Spain just got a later start.

1492 was not a late start for the Spaniards.

Originally posted by WindDancer
1492 was not a late start for the Spaniards.

In 1492 Columbus didn't really land in the Continent anyway.
It was the Islands..

But they didn't do much, and It was more south and southwest....And they didn't keep coming back either like the British did...with the 1812 thing...

Actually I do like the Spanish Language....

But, I just go eat my pop corn now.eat

Ok, wrong again, they DID keep coming back and had an Empire running through most of South America until it was overthrown by force in the years after 1812...

Really should check your history before coming in on something like this. Why did you think they speak Spanish down there?

I'm talking about the US and Canada.


Originally posted by debbiejo
Spain was in on it tooo....But Spain settled first more south in Mexico, and the Islands and South America....Spain just got a later start.

A later start for their claim in the US and Canada.

Spain had an extort all out of the land my way or the high way policy of the conquered which was most of central and south america......in 1499 pope Alexander VI divided the new world between Spain and Portugal, Portugal got what today is Brazil, Spain the rest of Sout and Central America, England France and Spain was the main actors in the conquest of North America even though both the Dutch and The Swedes also participated(they setttled the area around New York.

To believe that Britain didnt extrort and was all goody goody in their colonies and land they governed is to fool yourselves, they had and empire and they rule by our way is the law........obey or whip whip whip

just joininf the discussion so forgive me for back tracking a bit but this statement i couldn't let pass



spain etc were "exploring" were they?

i'm sure if you ask the natives of southern and central America they would disagree...the spanish conquistadors decimated those countries

as for who would be more advanced...the arguement speaks for itself

look at the US and Canada which was under British rule

then look at south america and mexico which fell under spanish and portuguese rule...which countries are better off?

Yes, but the initial view that was put forward is that the British Empire was some kind of altruistic entity that spread "freedom and fraternity" and that the indigenous peoples were better off under British rule - which to my knowledge is inaccurate.

i understand that...but to call the spanish etc as "explorers" is total nonsense..they were murderers and plunderers...they conquered in a more destructive way than the british empire did

the british also spread an education system throughout the world that is the basis for the rising economies of countries like india today...the main issue of poverty in india is part of their own history and culture and is the caste system...a barrier which prevents people from helping themselves out of poverty

Originally posted by finti
To believe that Britain didnt extrort and was all goody goody in their colonies and land they governed is to fool yourselves, they had and empire and they rule by our way is the law........obey or whip whip whip

Again, perpetuating the idea of rule by sheer force- I repeat, that could not be done. Britain did not have enough whips- we left that mainly to the locals.

I'll repeat, it was held together by greed and money. It could not have worked without the connivance of local rulers.

And yes a lot, of indigenous people were better off in terms of facilities and services. But they weren't free to choose their own Government, which many would say was the important point. The parts of the Empire that covered areas like India and Africa- as in, not placed we had colonised, but places we had taken over- had the possibility of true democracy removed because the authorities were designed to refer all decisions up to London.

Originally posted by finti
To believe that Britain didnt extrort and was all goody goody in their colonies and land they governed is to fool yourselves, they had and empire and they rule by our way is the law........obey or whip whip whip

Originally posted by finti
To believe that Britain didnt extrort and was all goody goody in their colonies and land they governed is to fool yourselves, they had and empire and they rule by our way is the law........obey or whip whip whip

Again, perpetuating the idea of rule by sheer force- I repeat, that could not be done. Britain did not have enough whips- we left that mainly to the locals.

I'll repeat, it was held together by greed and money. It could not have worked without the connivance of local rulers.

And yes a lot, of indigenous people were better off in terms of facilities and services. But they weren't free to choose their own Government, which many would say was the important point. The parts of the Empire that covered areas like India and Africa- as in, not placed we had colonised, but places we had taken over- had the possibility of true democracy removed because the authorities were designed to refer all decisions up to London.

even if it was left to the locals it was the British way that was enforced

Originally posted by finti
even if it was left to the locals it was the British way that was enforced

It was the 'British way' that meant progression DEVELOPMENT! As someone previously said- look at British rule in North America and Spanish rule in South America...
South America = corrupt and poor
North America = corrupt and rich

and India?

Originally posted by finti
and India?
Considerably better off after British rule than before.
Do you accept the evidence displayed in N. America, Australlia, India, S. Africa and New Zealand?

...and all of the island colonies?

yeah the country divided is way better off

South Africa? wasnt really much there in the first place, neither was Austrailia and New Zeland, but ask the original innhabitance of those places about if they feel better off after British rule than how they lived before it.....also ask Native Americans the same even though USA must take responsibility for actions taken after they gained independence.

Ask the Irish too

Originally posted by Britannia
Considerably better off after British rule than before.
Do you accept the evidence displayed in N. America, Australlia, India, S. Africa and New Zealand?
If you're referring to the indigenous people of N. America, Australia, New Zealand, S. Africa. No.

Originally posted by finti
yeah the country divided is way better off

South Africa? wasnt really much there in the first place, neither was Austrailia and New Zeland, but ask the original innhabitance of those places about if they feel better off after British rule than how they lived before it.....also ask Native Americans the same even though USA must take responsibility for actions taken after they gained independence.

Ask the Irish too

I'm afraid that I've never spoken to any indigenous peoples... have you? I do know, however, that in N. Ireland most people vote for the Ulster Unionists.... In case you are unaware that is the party (DEMOCRATIC PARTY) which represents the want to remain under British rule.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If you're referring to the indigenous people of N. America, Australia, New Zealand, S. Africa. No.

Have you ever even spoken do indigenous people?

I have to go for a bit, I'll read your comments later.

I live in New Zealand. I visit Australia. I have friends who are Maori, and I have indeed spoken to Australian Aborigines. Satisfied?

May I ask you the same question?

yes I have, I have spoken to many Native Americans

Ireland is more than Northern Ireland

Originally posted by finti
yes I have, I have spoken to many Native Americans

Ireland is more than Northern Ireland

We are talking about British rule, correct? Northern Island is the part under British rule... What do these native americans say about British rule? I am sure that you have had many detailed discussions about it.

Ireland*

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I live in New Zealand. I visit Australia. I have friends who are Maori, and I have indeed spoken to Australian Aborigines. Satisfied?

May I ask you the same question?

Same question goes to you...
I have spoken to Irish people, I have a South African friend and I know many from India. Oh, and a Canadian.

mainly that the white man came and took thier land and their way and Ireland was, just as India was, Usa was, Sout Africa was, Australia was and so on

oh yeah they have a long lost love for mainly English

Originally posted by finti
mainly that the white man came and took thier land and their way and Ireland was, just as India was, Usa was, Sout Africa was, Australia was and so on

oh yeah they have a long lost love for mainly English

Well, they have me as a friend... so they can't think that we're such a bad bunch.. (as you portray). It is interesting how the people you've spoken to seem to be anti-empire and the people I speak with are undoubtedly pro-empire.

We're going to reach a deadlock in this discussion if we have such contrasting views and both have evidence to support each of our views.

Be right back, I need some tea.

Originally posted by Britannia
Be right back, I need some tea.


Tea.....

well this isnt about the personal level its about the british empire
pro empire that it was ok for colonial powers to drain the colonies for natural resources?

how sissy sorry couldnt resist...............I bet you have milk in your tea...(earl grey or lipton?)

Originally posted by debbiejo
Tea.....

What's funny about tea?

Originally posted by Britannia
What's funny about tea?


I'm sorry.....It's just British = Tea.....tea tea tea......sorry.

Boston Tea Party....

Originally posted by finti
well this isnt about the personal level its about the british empire
pro empire that it was ok for colonial powers to drain the colonies for natural resources?

how sissy sorry couldnt resist...............I bet you have milk in your tea...(earl grey or lipton?)

How is tea 'sissy'?! It is a hot beverage...??!
I am saying that the Irish person I spoke to didn't have a problem with British rule.
I have told you time and time again... we didn't just collect the raw materials!
I am satill angry about your rude comments about tea!

Sissy tea = herbal tea/fusions... That, I grant you.

yeah and do you lift your pinky finger while sipping that sissy beverage, sorry to me tea is a girly thing

that was the main reason for colonising

Originally posted by finti
yeah and do you lift your pinky finger while sipping that sissy beverage, sorry to me tea is a girly thing

that was the main reason for colonising

Yes, but it wasn't the sole reason! What is a pinky finger?
I am trying to understand HOW it is sissy....

Originally posted by Britannia
Yes, but it wasn't the sole reason! What is a pinky finger?
I am trying to understand HOW it is sissy....

Are your tea cups pretty?...All proper and everything...

pinky finger=little finger

it is sissy in the way it is a girls beverage

Tea, tea its just so....................well gay (nothing wrong with being gay its just if a dude offered me tea I would think "this bloke is gay"

Originally posted by Britannia
Same question goes to you...
I have spoken to Irish people, I have a South African friend and I know many from India. Oh, and a Canadian.
You have a Zulu friend? And an Inuit friend?

Originally posted by finti
pinky finger=little finger

it is sissy in the way it is a girls beverage

Tea, tea its just so....................well gay (nothing wrong with being gay its just if a dude offered me tea I would think "this bloke is gay"

Really? I didn't realise it was seen that way... to me, it is just a drink.
No, I don't have 'pretty' tea cups...
I have a Winston Churchill cup with this quote inside-
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."
I can't believe that it's seen as a gay drink. Are you being serious? A gay drink over here would be Herbal/fruit tea....

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You have a Zulu friend? And an Inuit friend?

Yeah, loads.

Well in all the movies you have pretty tea cups...all proper and everthing.....The world thinks you use pretty tea cups...Like the Queen.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Well in all the movies you have pretty tea cups...all proper and everthing.....The world thinks you use pretty tea cups...Like the Queen.

We have proper tea cups... but that doesn't mean that they're gay... it means that we drink with class.
Are you confusing properness with gayness? Or do you think it is just a cultural difference?

I take it you don't actually?
Oh and tea is pretty sissyish.

tea is tea yeah hows your china Brit

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I take it you don't actually?
Oh and tea is pretty sissyish.

Yes, I have loads.

Maybe where you two live, tea is seen as sissy..
But here in the UK it is a necessity... problems are solved with tea... we celebrate with tea, we comiserate with tea... it is the drink of heaven. Lol- tea --DOES-- solve everything.

This has turned into tea blasphemy!

I knew it...they do use china.....It is all proper like...It's not propaganda, it's true........

You foreigners will never understand the importance of tea in Britain. If it was banned... the country would fall apart.

Not everyone has proper china...

You expect me to believe you have loads of Inuit and Zulu friends...

Btw finti I dont' really picture Capt_Fantastic as a tea man. (tea man lol sounds paradoxical )

But every household will have tea.

Originally posted by Britannia
You foreigners will never understand the importance of tea in Britain. If it was banned... the country would fall apart.

Now we know your weakness.....The down fall of the empire...take away their tea and pretty tea cups....smash them.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You expect me to believe you have loads of Inuit and Zulu friends...

finti I dont' really picture Capt_Fantastic as a tea man. (tea man lol sounds paradoxical )

What have you got against tea drinkers! Most of the UK drinks tea!
Yes, I expect you to believe that I have lots of Zulu and Inuit friends, like I believe that you have lots of Mouri and Aboriginie friends.

Seriously... I want you BOTH, in your mind... erase the idea that tea is feminine and replace it as a simple drink for British people (and some other foreign people)

so the real reason behind the British empire was to sissy up the world then

Originally posted by finti
so the real reason behind the British empire was to sissy up the world then



You're just jealous.

I didn't say I have lots of Maori friends, and I didn't say I had any Aborigine friends. I said I have some Maori friends and I've talked to Aborigine people. I live in New Zealand, and I have relatives in Australia that I visit.
We were talking about indigenous people and you said you knew a Canadian and a South African - unless they're a Zulu and an Inuit then you knowing a Canadian and a S. African is completely irrelevant.

I can picture it for me now. Admiral Nelson" Alright chaps lets give the french a pretty good licking and then you can serve the tea in the blue and white porcelain cups there first-mate, make sure you dont crack the china or you taste the whip,...hooray hooray hooray Britain"

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I didn't say I have lots of Maori friends, and I didn't say I had any Aborigine friends. I said I have some Maori friends and I've talked to Aborigine people. I live in New Zealand, and I have relatives in Australia that I visit.
We were talking about indigenous people and you said you knew a Canadian and a South African - unless they're a Zulu and an Inuit then you knowing a Canadian and a S. African is completely irrelevant.

Yes, I have lots of Zulu and Inuit chums. Do you doubt my integrity?

Originally posted by finti
I can picture it for me now. Admiral Nelson" Alright chaps lets give the french a pretty good licking and then you can serve the tea in the blue and white porcelain cups there first-mate, make sure you dont crack the china or you taste the whip,...hooray hooray hooray Britain"

Don't TRY and insult Nelson... without him... we'd all be under French rule. Besides... so what if he did enjoy his tea? It proves that it is not gay.

What's the Inuit and Zulu population in the UK? Are they all concentrated around your area? Somehow you know lots of them and they all think Imperialism was fantastic? I'm sorry but I call bullshit on that.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
What's the Inuit and Zulu population in the UK? Are they all concentrated around your area? Somehow you know lots of them and they all think Imperialism was fantastic? I'm sorry but I call bullshit on that.

I visited them in South Africa and Canada. I don't care whether you believe me, but I'll have to chose to not believe you.

"Hey Wellington care for some tea old chap, I make Sir John Colborne bring out the dishes, then we go take that Bonaparte he dont like tea that garlic nibbeling savage"

Originally posted by finti
"Hey Wellington care for some tea old chap, I make Sir John Colborne bring out the dishes, then we go take that Bonaparte he dont like tea that garlic nibbeling savage"


Garlic nibbling savage!! I love it!

You know classy tea drinkers only use Bone China....other cups are just well.....the lower classes.

Originally posted by Britannia
I visited them in South Africa and Canada.
You visit your tons of Zulu and Inuit friends... and they all loved Imperialist Britain... riiiight....
Originally posted by Britannia
I don't care whether you believe me, but I'll have to chose to not believe you.
You don't believe I live in New Zealand? Or you don't believe I have Maori friends? Or both?

Originally posted by debbiejo
You know classy tea drinkers only use Bone China....other cups are just well.....the lower classes.

I agree old boy.
I felt rather savage thus I decided to use a commoner's mug.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You visit your tons of Zulu and Inuit friends... and they all loved Imperialist Britain... riiiight....

You don't believe I live in New Zealand? Or you don't believe I have Maori friends? Or both?

You don't believe me, I don't believe you.
Yes, one of my Zulu friends even treasures a British flag and flies it every day whilst sipping some Earl Grey.

"hey winston is the pot finished yet I can kill for some milk tea and biscuit, oh by the way Monty whooped Erwins rear"

Originally posted by finti
"hey winston is the pot finished yet I can kill for some milk tea and biscuit, oh by the way Monty whooped Erwins rear"

Not as good as the Wellington one...

They drank tea in all their wars didn't they....That's why they were mad at the American colonies....we didn't see eye to eye on the tea thing....we dumped it....made them mad....Savage Americans....what's wrong with them....They don't like tea????

"Hey Tony dont give me that darn tea, Im a texan and aint no sissy, now tell me where is wales again"

Originally posted by Britannia
You don't believe me, I don't believe you.
Yes, one of my Zulu friends even treasures a British flag and flies it every day whilst sipping some Earl Grey.
Well this is going nowhere.

I'm being absolutely sincere when I say I live in Auckland, New Zealand. The Treaty of Waitangi, the Musket Wars and the Land Wars are all part of our high school Social Studies curriculum. I went to high school with, have worked with, and now study at uni with people of all different races including Maori and some of them I know well enough that I'd consider them friends.

If you say you're being absolutely sincere about having both Inuit and Zulu friends - then I will believe you.

Originally posted by debbiejo


They drank tea in all their wars didn't they....That's why they were mad at the American colonies....we didn't see eye to eye on the tea thing....we dumped it....made them mad....Savage Americans....what's wrong with them....They don't like tea????

I think that everyone should just accept that the British love tea, whereas savage foreigners... (Americans, Norweigans (sp) etc) find it feminine and even 'gay'.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Well this is going nowhere.

I'm being absolutely sincere when I say I live in Auckland, New Zealand. The Treaty of Waitangi, the Musket Wars and the Land Wars are all part of our high school Social Studies curriculum. I went to high school with, have worked with, and now study at uni with people of all different races including Maori and some of them I know well enough that I'd consider them friends.

If you say you're being absolutely sincere about having both Inuit and Zulu friends - then I will believe you.

Splendid. I believe you too.

My mother in law drinks her tea every day......

Tea and toaste...

Do you have toaste with your tea too?

"Hey Howe, put on the kettle its freezing cold, I want some tea. The Delaware is freezing up and Gorgie boy cant cross it, we wait until thaw so that Cornwallis come up from the south with more herbal tea, and dont dampen the biscuit and bring out the coco, barbarian these colonials I saw a Virginain drink tea from a mug"

more the English ones of the Brits

Pictures usually speak louder than words...
http://www.greatervictoriahotels.com/victoria_bc_hotels/images/blethering-place_Victoria-tea_girls.jpg

Originally posted by finti
"Hey Howe, put on the kettle its freezing cold, I want some tea. The Delaware is freezing up and Gorgie boy cant cross it, we wait until thaw so that Cornwallis come up from the south with more herbal tea, and dont dampen the biscuit and bring out the coco, barbarian these colonials I saw a Virginain drink tea from a mug"



Yeah us barbarian mug guzzling tea belchers......But, hey...we won the war.....We didn't have to worry about cracking our fine China....

Tea is more healthy than all that other crap americans drink. We drink Tea. So what? I'd rather drink gallons of tea than gallons of GatorAide or Cool-Aide or whatever it is you yanks take with your heroin.

Tea is great. Anyone that thinks otherwise, I kickem in the nuts.

"Hey Arthur, Lancelot wonderd if you fancied a cup of tea"


"What!!!! William cant attack now its tea time, tell that Norman thug to hold on............. arrow?, what f*ucking arrow"


if you drink tea you aint got the balls to kick someone in the nuts......come to think of it if you drink tea you aint got balls at all

Originally posted by Red Superfly
Tea is great. Anyone that thinks otherwise, I kickem in the nuts.
These ladies sure think so...

Then I just pour it all over your eyes. Now you can't see. Ha.

your pantyhose is ripped

That's interesting. If I was to think about countries and beverages.
When I think Russia, I think vodka.
When I think Germany, I think beer.
When I think France, I think wine.

But when I think UK, I think tea.

Do all British women look like that last picture????....I fancy they might....

The British 'Empire' is so empty-minded and frivolous, I mean they still keep a royal family for show - how ridiculous that they think they still have Kings, Queens and the rest. A perfect example of how mindless the masses are that they need royalty to look up to because they are nothing themselves and bored to idiocy.

Originally posted by Wonderer
The British 'Empire' is so empty-minded and frivolous, I mean they still keep a royal family for show - how ridiculous that they think they still have Kings, Queens and the rest. A perfect example of how mindless the masses are that they need royalty to look up to because they are nothing themselves and bored to idiocy.
They don't look up to the Royals... they look up to tea...
http://www.startateabusiness.com/images/19th-century-woman-drinking.jpg

yeah when they could look up to the likes of Nietzsche, oh Freidrich what a role model you were................bah humbug

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
They don't look up to the Royals... they look up to tea...
http://www.startateabusiness.com/images/19th-century-woman-drinking.jpg


Like Christians look up to god for their inspiration......god = tea.

I don't take coffee I take tea my dear
I like my toast done on one side
And you can hear it in my accent when I talk
I'm an Englishman in New York

Originally posted by finti
yeah when they could look up to the likes of Nietzsche, oh Freidrich what a role model you were................bah humbug

I did not imply they must look up to greater people. What I mean is that they (and anyone else) must look in/up to themselves to grow and develop themselves for the sake of bettering their own condition of being.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Like Christians look up to god for their inspiration......god = tea.
That's right debbiejo.
Join the cult... have some tea...
http://www.detnews.com/pix/2001/07/18/c05ltea1.jpg
go on take it...

I mentioned Nietzsche not greater people