The Great British Empire. · General Discussion Forum

finti Senior Member

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

that was not the idea that was what it turned into

xmarksthespot CEO, BS Comics

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.

debbiejo Dreamer

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..

Deano Senior Member

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

finti Senior Member

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

finti Senior Member

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

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

debbiejo Dreamer

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.

finti Senior Member

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

debbiejo Dreamer

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....

Ushgarak Paladin

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.

Ushgarak Paladin

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.

finti Senior Member

I'll repeat again, the British Empire was not and could not be, held together by force.

well they tried too but couldnt

debbiejo Dreamer

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.

Ushgarak Paladin

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.

debbiejo Dreamer

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....

WindDancer THE LOOSE CANNON

Originally posted by debbiejo
Spain just got a later start.

1492 was not a late start for the Spaniards.

debbiejo Dreamer

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

Ushgarak Paladin

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?

debbiejo Dreamer

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.

finti Senior Member

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