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.
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.)
No, but I think that Britain had a pivetal roll in world developmentthey had a role alright just like others had a role if it was more pivotal than others at THAT time maybe.
who can say what the world would be like if there had been a French Empire the size of the British Empire? *shudders*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"
.
but these countries didn't have the same sort of ideologies as the Britishwhat ideology?, to make the world British??
No? Where have I said that?you kind of implied it with
The technology and idea of enterprise etc would not have been spread around the world, thus making it less developed
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!
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 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...
Face it... Britain changed the world for the better. And it would not be the same world without the Empire.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
I don't quie understand what you're trying to say here...it means since they were the looser all that was French was kind of bad and vicious and dictator like
the British wanted to spread freedom and fraternity... that was the central pillar which supported the empiredont 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
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 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...
America? Remind me.... how did America become populated?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
How did the revolution start? Would there have been a revolution? No.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 coloniesthe 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'.
Yes, they did. But they didn't control 1/4 of the earth's surface, did they?how much they controlled is a diffrent matter all together, it is what they did whith what they posessed that is the matter here
you keep immplying that other colonial powers would have done what Britain did anyway... but how do you know?!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