Britain destroyed records of colonial crimes

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Fair? lol How about I sell you a Yugo that has a Mercedes emblem on it while not bothering to tell you its engine is going to die? Fair is BS. When you sell stuff to people without full disclosure, it isn't fair.

Ever here the term 'buyer beware'? Same thing goes for the seller.

If you sell me a yugo without misrepresenting it as a mercedes but at the price of a mercedes with no expressed or implied warranties (as is) and I agree to it then you just made a great deal. Conversely if I buy a mercedes off you and negotiate you down to the price of a yugo I made a great deal. In either situation neither of us has any recourse to back out of the deal. The only thing that would break either deal is a misrepresentation by the seller of what is being bought, IE: a yogo with a mercedes emblem and decals.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Fair? lol How about I sell you a Yugo that has a Mercedes emblem on it while not bothering to tell you its engine is going to die? Fair is BS. When you sell stuff to people without full disclosure, it isn't fair.

While pointing a gun at his head and telling him to take the deal.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Then why do we have laws and suchlike that say scamming is a nono? The locals were sold a sparkplug that only fits the master cylinder ( HowStuffWorks "How Master Cylinders and Combination Valves Work" ), so to speak.

Oops! Not my issue, I wasn't involved in the deal!

If we really want to bring this into terms of commercial law then....
1- The 99 year statute on allowable length is long come and gone so the treaties prior to 1913 are invalid.
2- I was not a party to the contract and therefore cannot be bound by it.
3- The 2 year statute of limitations on disputing a contract is long past on all the agreements.
4- Buyer/seller beware.

The indians don't have an arrow left in the quiver so to speak if this is a commercial deal. Too bad, so sad!!!!
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Oops! Not my issue, I wasn't involved in the deal!

If we really want to bring this into terms of commercial law then....
1- The 99 year statute on allowable length is long come and gone so the treaties prior to 1913 are invalid.
2- I was not a party to the contract and therefore cannot be bound by it.
3- The 2 year statute of limitations on disputing a contract is long past on all the agreements.
4- Buyer/seller beware.

The indians don't have an arrow left in the quiver so to speak if this is a commercial deal. Too bad, so sad!!!!
So you've mentioned before but as long as you are a Canadian doing Canadian things you are just as part of Canada as its history is.
But, I agree, living in the past is foolish; people need to deal with it at the time or suck it up and move on.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
....we'd be idiots, because it's not. It's a treaty.

That itself could be debated because many of the terms surrounded possession of and rights to certain lands and resources. To me that is a trade deal that was brokered in order to end a war, not an armistice agreement. But it is all so long ago and we really need to look forward and either all be Canadians under the same laws or go to war and see who holds the territory and control of governance at the end. This endless bickering and claims of getting a raw deal are useless and offering them more money and stuff is just as useless.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
For what exactly?

This whole topic is a side track, a deflection by Blackleaf, and people took the bait and ran.

You're right. Back to the thread topic.....

So Britain instituted a burnt ground (or burnt document) policy. They aren't the first and won't be the last to destroy or hide evidence or commit atrocious acts.

Now it has cometo public light some scapegoat will have their feet put to the fire and get their pee-pee smacked and life will continue on for everyone.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Those treaties may have been upheld and then some.

The devil is in the details..... Careful what you wish for

None of that is the debate at hand though.

You're right. Back to the thread topic.....

So Britain instituted a burnt ground (or burnt document) policy. They aren't the first and won't be the last to destroy or hide evidence or commit atrocious acts.

Now it has cometo public light some scapegoat will have their feet put to the fire and get their pee-pee smacked and life will continue on for everyone.


True enough, it will likely change diddly squat. But hopefully it will clarify some of the history that they are trying to erase.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
True enough, it will likely change diddly squat. But hopefully it will clarify some of the history that they are trying to erase.

In situations of war history is always written by the winners, in situations of oppression it is written by the oppressors. History really is mostly a one-sided story.
 

Sons of Liberty

Walks on Water
Aug 24, 2010
1,284
0
36
Evil Empire
The trouble with some North Americans is that, when criticising Britain's colonial past, they are forgetting one important aspect - that, if it wasn't for Britain's colonial past, there would be no Canada and USA today. Canada and the USA are the results of Britain colonial past.

I won't speak for Canadians, but you need to brush up on your history, the British Empire only grabbed what the Europeans built. That is what the British Empire did, right? Pretty much take land that didn't belong to them.

Ummmm, our ancestors did buy the land.

Your ancestors were the British Empire and they did nothing but serve the Monarch.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
I won't speak for Canadians, but you need to brush up on your history, the British Empire only grabbed what the Europeans built. That is what the British Empire did, right? Pretty much take land that didn't belong to them.



Your ancestors were the British Empire and they did nothing but serve the Monarch.

Actually my ancestors were the French nobility. Prior to the revolution unfortunately so I got squat. :-:)lol:
 

Nuggler

kind and gentle
Feb 27, 2006
11,596
141
63
Backwater, Ontario.
Personally, I'd much prefer that people had landed on North America and bought land properly, traded fairly, done it right. I'd prefer to not have segregation in my communities because of a history of British derision for aboriginal people. I'd prefer to be here 'right'. Unfortunately, I have no control over my circumstance of birth. And I'm not willing to walk away from my country and the First Nations people, because that would mean breaking ties with a lot of my family. The damage is done now, it's up to future Canadians to attempt to repair it. Trying to use it as some justification for what was done to the Mau Mau, is pathetic, petty, and frankly creepy.


They did buy it. Fair and square. The number of beads were limited but they did their best..:roll:
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,948
1,910
113
Seems to me I've read plenty of tales of English nasty deeds; so you, Mr. Pot, are simply calling other pots and kettles black.

I've read plenty of tales of Canadian nasty deeds, and nasty deeds committed by 100 other nations. So get off your high horse.

Speaking of nasty deeds, did you know that in prehistoric times, the people
occupying your pissant little island were cannibals?

That was in prehistoric times.

However, there were cannibals occupying your godforsaken frozen wasteland until as recently as the 19th Century at least. They were what we know as Native Americans. They practised cannibalism a lot.

Francis Parkman went into graphic detail describing the act of cannibalism amongst the North American Indians. Particularly, after the battle of Fort William Henry where the Ottawa tribesman feasted on their English captives much to the horror of the French, who were powerless to stop them.

"...He Presently saw a large number of them squatted about a fire, before which meat was roasting on sticks stuck in the ground; and approaching, he saw that it was the flesh of an Englishman, other parts of which were boiling in a kettle, while near by sat eight or ten of the prisoners, forced to see their comrade devoured. The horror stricken priest began to remonstrate, on which a young savage fiercely replied in broken French: "You have French taste, I have Indian. This is good meat for me."; and the feasters pressed him to share it."
-Montcalm and Wolfe

You mean the Canadians that immigrated here from England, France, and other
barbaric places in Europe?

Yeah. It was YOUR ancestors, not mine, who stole all those vast tracts of land off the Native Indians.

Again, you're the pot calling the kettle black.

I'd happily support any group of Native American freedom fighters who butcher your kids and rape your women in order to drive you colonisers off thieir lands. If William Wallace and the Mau Mau can do it why not the North American Indians?

Wrong, as usual. Without colonisation, native North Americans would have
continued to exist within THEIR own cultures.


They wouldn't have existed within the nation state of Canada and the nation state of the USA, though, would they? Both only exist because of the British Empire. That's why you lot should be eternally grateful and thankful towards the British Empire.

That is what the British Empire did, right? Pretty much take land that didn't belong to them.

If it didn't it wouldn't have been an empire, would it? That's what all empire throughout history have done.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
What? Like the Canadians did in North America?

I'd be fully supportive of any North American tribe that broke into your house, murdered your kids, raped your wife and then beheaded you. After all, it is THEIR space that you have invaded and taken over.

By the way, I'm not inbred, and I don't know anyone who is. I'm probably less inbred than you are.

That was the British that caused all our problems before Canada became a country. We are still dealing with many of the problems they caused. Parts of my family were in NA long before you even knew the world is round.
All your royality is inbred

In situations of war history is always written by the winners, in situations of oppression it is written by the oppressors. History really is mostly a one-sided story.

There is also herstory. Often quite different than history.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
I've read plenty of tales of Canadian nasty deeds, and nasty deeds committed by 100 other nations. So get off your high horse.
.....

I'd happily support any group of Native American freedom fighters who butcher your kids and rape your women in order to drive you colonisers off thieir lands. If William Wallace and the Mau Mau can do it why not the North American Indians?

The fact that other countries have done stuff does not change the topic at hand, or erase the sins of the British Empire. You're simply deflecting to try to change the topic from anything that makes Britain look less than perfect.


It's not perfect.

As for what you'd 'gladly support'.... you're a twisted fcuk.