How the liberals made Britain ashamed of being Great

[SLM]

You want me to see what YOU see. Instead I see it for what it is.

The British Empire was the most benign empire the world has ever seen, and without it Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand and other offspring of that empire simply wouldn't exist, and India would not be the success story it is today.

The British Empire makes me extremely proud to be British.

I don't give a damn what you see, lol. Everyone can and should feel a sense of pride in themselves, their nation, their culture.

But you cannot seem to lift you and yours up without putting someone or something else down. That's an inflated sense of pride....and that is ego.

 

[petros]

Yeah. Keep 'em coming. You're still wrong, though. Nothing will ever change that.

I'm wrong because I speak better English than you do?

You want me to see what YOU see. Instead I see it for what it is.

The British Empire was the most benign empire the world has ever seen, and without it Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand and other offspring of that empire simply wouldn't exist, and India would not be the success story it is today.

The British Empire makes me extremely proud to be British.

Benign? Ask any native of a colony if they were benign. Ask any non-English immigrant to a colony if the English were benign.

You won't like what you hear I guarantee that.

 

[Blackleaf]

I don't give a damn what you see, lol.

It doesn't seem like it. You're in a bad mood because you have failed to make me show "humility" and "shame" over the British Empire.

Rather than me showing shame, you should show some gratitude.

 

[CDNBear]

Rather than me showing shame, you should show some gratitude.

Why would anyone show the briddish failed empire gratitude for spreading bigotry, genocide, cultural theft and worst of all, mediocrity?

You should be ashamed, we should be outraged.

 

[SLM]

It doesn't seem like it. You're in a bad mood because you have failed to make me show "humility" and "shame" over the British Empire.

I'm not in a "bad mood", lol. I just think you're egotistical and probably a text book case narcissist if you want the truth.

Rather than me showing shame, you should show some gratitude.

LMAO. EGO!!!!!

 

[petros]

The 1943 Bengal famine, in which at least one million and perhaps three
million people died, remains a lasting blot on the imperial record.

Yup, that's benign.

 

[Blackleaf]

Why would anyone show the briddish failed empire gratitude for spreading bigotry, genocide, cultural theft and worst of all, mediocrity?

You should be ashamed, we should be outraged.

No. You should be ashamed of yourself for writing such a disgusting, despicable and ignorant post.

To brand the most successful and most benign empire in history, a true force for good and righteousness, an empire which fought for freedom and democracy in both world wars and created many of the modern world's wealthiest and most democratic states, as "a failure" is completely and utterly ludicrous and shows a complete lack of historical knowledge and gratitude.

Your ingratitude is breathtaking.

 

[petros]

https://www.google.ca/#q=slaughter+of+natives+by+british

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre (also known as the Amritsar massacre), was a seminal event in the British rule of India. On 13 April 1919, a crowd of non-violent protesters, along with Baishakhi pilgrims, had gathered in the Jallianwala Bagh garden in Amritsar, Punjab. On the orders of Brigadier-General Reginald E.H. Dyer, the army fired on the crowd for ten minutes, directing their bullets largely towards the few open gates through which people were trying to run out. The dead numbered between 370 and 1,000, or possibly more. The "brutality stunned the entire nation",[1] resulting in a "wrenching loss of faith in Britain’s good intentions".[2] The ineffective inquiry and the initial accolades for Dyer by the House of Lords fueled widespread anger, leading to the Non-cooperation movement of 1920-22.[3]

More benign actions by the briddish.

Indian massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CDNBear]

Your ingratitude is breathtaking.

Your mediocrity is only surpassed by your absurdity.

You briddish have nothing to be proud of.

 

[SLM]

Your ingratitude is breathtaking.

Oh climb down off that damn pedestal you put yourself on before you fall and break your neck.

https://www.google.ca/#q=slaughter+of+natives+by+british

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre (also known as the Amritsar massacre), was a seminal event in the British rule of India. On 13 April 1919, a crowd of non-violent protesters, along with Baishakhi pilgrims, had gathered in the Jallianwala Bagh garden in Amritsar, Punjab. On the orders of Brigadier-General Reginald E.H. Dyer, the army fired on the crowd for ten minutes, directing their bullets largely towards the few open gates through which people were trying to run out. The dead numbered between 370 and 1,000, or possibly more. The "brutality stunned the entire nation",[1] resulting in a "wrenching loss of faith in Britain’s good intentions".[2] The ineffective inquiry and the initial accolades for Dyer by the House of Lords fueled widespread anger, leading to the Non-cooperation movement of 1920-22.[3]

Won't see or will come up with some asinine explanation why it was the 'best thing for the savages". :roll:

 

[petros]

Australian Aborigines suffered Genocide at the hands of the European invaders in the 19th and 20th centuries. The Indigenous population dropped from about 1 million to 0.1 million in the first century after the invasion in 1788, mainly through violence, dispossession, deprivation and introduced disease. The last massacres of Aborigines occurred in the 1920s. Throughout much of the 20th century there was a policy of forcibly removing Aboriginal children from their mothers, a systematic genocidal policy involving the removal of perhaps 0.1 million children. This practice ended in the 1970s. However the continued deliberate deprivation of Aboriginal Australians amounts to a White Australian policy of passive genocide

Indian massacre of 1622 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More benign British love spreading


In War of Civilisations: India AD 1857, Amaresh Misra, a writer and historian based in Mumbai, argues that there was an "untold holocaust" which caused the deaths of almost 10 million people over 10 years beginning in 1857. Britain was then the world's superpower but, says Misra, came perilously close to losing its most prized possession: India.Conventional histories have counted only 100,000 Indian soldiers who were slaughtered in savage reprisals, but none have tallied the number of rebels and civilians killed by British forces desperate to impose order, claims Misra.

 

[SLM]

Australian Aborigines suffered Genocide at the hands of the European invaders in the 19th and 20th centuries. The Indigenous population dropped from about 1 million to 0.1 million in the first century after the invasion in 1788, mainly through violence, dispossession, deprivation and introduced disease. The last massacres of Aborigines occurred in the 1920s. Throughout much of the 20th century there was a policy of forcibly removing Aboriginal children from their mothers, a systematic genocidal policy involving the removal of perhaps 0.1 million children. This practice ended in the 1970s. However the continued deliberate deprivation of Aboriginal Australians amounts to a White Australian policy of passive genocide

Indian massacre of 1622 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More benign British love spreading


In War of Civilisations: India AD 1857, Amaresh Misra, a writer and historian based in Mumbai, argues that there was an "untold holocaust" which caused the deaths of almost 10 million people over 10 years beginning in 1857. Britain was then the world's superpower but, says Misra, came perilously close to losing its most prized possession: India.Conventional histories have counted only 100,000 Indian soldiers who were slaughtered in savage reprisals, but none have tallied the number of rebels and civilians killed by British forces desperate to impose order, claims Misra.

Savages, Petros, savages. Get with the lingo if you hope for him to understand. Lol.

You know, the truly great irony in all of this constant ego tripping that occurs is that I, and I suspect a few other people as well, would actually welcome the point of view of someone outside this nation. Outside of North America for that matter. But instead we get "treated" to nearly daily doses of "this is why I am great and everyone else, but most especially you, are sh it".

So **** it, he gets what he has coming to him.

 

[petros]

They were benignly slaughtered so it's all good.

 

[SLM]

They were benignly slaughtered so it's all good.

...:lol:

 

[Blackleaf]

https://www.google.ca/#q=slaughter+of+natives+by+british

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre (also known as the Amritsar massacre), was a seminal event in the British rule of India. On 13 April 1919, a crowd of non-violent protesters, along with Baishakhi pilgrims, had gathered in the Jallianwala Bagh garden in Amritsar, Punjab. On the orders of Brigadier-General Reginald E.H. Dyer, the army fired on the crowd for ten minutes, directing their bullets largely towards the few open gates through which people were trying to run out. The dead numbered between 370 and 1,000, or possibly more. The "brutality stunned the entire nation",[1] resulting in a "wrenching loss of faith in Britain’s good intentions".[2] The ineffective inquiry and the initial accolades for Dyer by the House of Lords fueled widespread anger, leading to the Non-cooperation movement of 1920-22.[3]

More benign actions by the briddish.

Indian massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice of you to ignore both articles.

Either that or you struggled to read them.

Or could it be that the truth that the liberal, lefty way of thinking about the glorious British Empire hurts you so much?

Posting silly little articles in a futile attempt to show how evil the British Empire was is hardly going to change the TRUTH that the British Empire was the most benign in history and the greatest force for good this world has ever seen. Bar travelling back in time and changing history, nothing will chance that fact.

 

[petros]

I did, it's what inspired me to read up on and post some of the benign British slaughters.

"It was a holocaust, one where millions disappeared. It was a necessary holocaust in the British view because they thought the only way to win was to destroy entire populations in towns and villages. It was simple and brutal. Indians who stood in their way were killed. But its scale has been kept a secret," Misra told the Guardian.

His calculations rest on three principal sources. Two are records pertaining to the number of religious resistance fighters killed - either Islamic mujahideen or Hindu warrior ascetics committed to driving out the British.

The third source involves British labour force records, which show a drop in manpower of between a fifth and a third across vast swaths of India, which as one British official records was "on account of the undisputed display of British power, necessary during those terrible and wretched days - millions of wretches seemed to have died."

 

[Blackleaf]

Oh climb down off that damn pedestal you put yourself on before you fall and break your neck.

I'm not going to do anything to please whiny, liberal lefties like you. I fight and defeat whiny, lefty liberals.

And this is a battle you and your pals are losing, badly.

Won't see or will come up with some asinine explanation why it was the 'best thing for the savages". :roll:

Again, someone else who didn't bother to read the articles, otherwise you wouldn't keep writing such predictable, simplistic and historically inaccurate comments.

 

[petros]

I quoted what you posted which admits to shameful acts bestowed upon the people of India.

 

[Blackleaf]

I did, it's what inspired me to read up on and post some of the benign British slaughters.

"It was a holocaust, one where millions disappeared. It was a necessary holocaust in the British view because they thought the only way to win was to destroy entire populations in towns and villages. It was simple and brutal. Indians who stood in their way were killed. But its scale has been kept a secret," Misra told the Guardian.

His calculations rest on three principal sources. Two are records pertaining to the number of religious resistance fighters killed - either Islamic mujahideen or Hindu warrior ascetics committed to driving out the British.

The third source involves British labour force records, which show a drop in manpower of between a fifth and a third across vast swaths of India, which as one British official records was "on account of the undisputed display of British power, necessary during those terrible and wretched days - millions of wretches seemed to have died."

Just in case you didn't see it:

Britain has no need to make an apology to India for Empire... | Mail Online

Indians require no apology for Empire and seek none, and nor do Britons need to feel especially guilty for it.

India is the world's second-largest growing economy, producing more English-speaking graduates than the rest of the world combined.

The use of English is the most enduring and profitable legacy of the British Raj; without it, the boom in Indian call-centre and software industries could not have happened.

All that is best about India - its tolerance, freedom and engagement with the world - has flourished due to the structures and ideas it inherited from British rule.

Last Christmas, I attended midnight mass at St Thomas's Cathedral in Mumbai. Built by the British in 1718, it is the oldest colonial building in the city, pre-dating the Raj by over a century, and is a monument to Empire.

As the Church of India priest lead a service that any British Anglican would recognise, I read the plaques covering the walls, which commemorated officers of the British East India Company (which ruled India before rule was transferred to the British Crown in the 1850s) who fell in the various battles through which Britain defeated and subjugated India.

The fact that Christianity is very much accepted in India (the next day, the neon sign outside the Mahalakshmi Temple proclaimed 'Merry Christmas' to its Hindu worshippers), is proof of the country's quiet acknowledgement that British rule in India left a legacy that unified its disparate peoples and enabled them to emerge as a power in the world.

Despite the often callous profiteering of Empire, the modern Indian state simply would not exist without it.

Like the U.S., India is a nation fostered into being by Britain, and one which derives its romantic national identity from its struggle for independence. And just as Americans don't publicly admit that George Washington was an abysmal general who lost almost every battle, Indians don't explicitly recognise Britain's contribution to their country's present success.

But emulation is the sincerest form of flattery, and the fact that since 1947, Indians have built upon much of what Britain introduced them to - the English language, parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and the protection of individual rights - is an admission of the crucial role this country played in their history.

British rule in India was a joint effort, impossible without the widespread co- operation of Indians themselves.

Despite the country's vast population, there were never more than 70,000 British troops in India; the running of the country required an enormous infrastructure of native troops, police and bureaucrats. As Hitler observed, Indians merely had to spit all at once and every Briton in India would have drowned.

Indians assisted with Empire because it brought them unprecedented order and civility. Indians were no strangers to outside rulers; for eight centuries before the Raj, the sub-continent had been subjected to the plunder and depravity of the Mughals - Muslim rulers who came from as far west as Turkey.

Delhi was razed eight times in that period and great pyramids were constructed with the skulls of its inhabitants.

Because Islam permits the enslavement of non-Muslims, Indians were sold across the Islamic world in such quantities that the international price of slaves collapsed.

The Afghan mountain range of the Hindu Khush (which translates as the 'Hindu Slaughter') is named after the huge numbers who died there while being marched to the markets of Arabia and Central Asia.

For all the artistic refinement and opulence of India's past rulers - and their poetry, music, and the magnificence of the Taj Mahal are testament to that - they oversaw a period of general barbarism in which the ordinary Indian was no more than a starving chattel.

The rebellions which eventually arose against the Mughals - such as the Sikhs in Punjab and the Marathas in the south - fractured the rulers' power, and enabled the British to get their own foot in the door.

At this point, it's important to remember that the British did not arrive in an idyllic sub-continent full of happy, contented Indians, but in one in extreme turmoil.

And, though primarily motivated by profit, they sought to apply humane values - even if at gunpoint.

In 1846, the British commissioner, John Lawrence, told the local elite that Punjabis could no longer burn their widows, commit female infanticide, nor bury their lepers alive.

When they protested, saying that he had promised there would be no interference in their religious customs, Lawrence steadfastly replied that it was British religious custom to hang anyone who did such things.

In addition to combating these barbaric practices, the British also outlawed slavery in 1843 at a time when an estimated 10 million Indians were slaves - up to 15 per cent of the population in some regions.

 

[SLM]

I'm not going to do anything to please whiny, liberal lefties like you. I fight and defeat whiny, lefty liberals.

Oh okay, here comes the deflection part of the programming. The "it's not me, it's you" spiel.....no, trust me, it's definitely you.

And this is a battle you and your pals are losing, badly.

Left/right, up/down, backwards and forwards, I don't give a damn....it's still all about your ego.