[Humour] Does Everyone Hate the English?

Tyrone Biggums · Nov 21, 2018

Leighgull said:
OK TB. I’ll bite.

Could you spare a moment or two to point out the “revisionist” parts of my post? I really am interested.

Of course. You could be wrong.

The whole bit where you painted a benevolent picture. Seems to gloss over the long part in history when indigenous cultures were invaded, killed, lost their lands and the empire made them either slaves or serfs while making vast sums of money from their misery. All of those cultures deal with the repercussions of those times still today.

Were they sticking up for the underdog while all that was happening?

As for the comment on the war, The Russians more than anyone defeated the Nazis, paid the heaviest price too. The Nazis suffered 3/4 of their wartime losses to the Russians.

To put it into perspective, the UK suffered just over 380,000 military casualties in WW2. The Russians lost between 8-10 million.

Like em or loather them they saved Europe from the Nazis far more than anyone else did. Even the Germans agree.

Leighgull · Nov 21, 2018

Tyrone Biggums said:
The whole bit where you painted a benevolent picture. Seems to gloss over the long part in history when indigenous cultures were invaded, killed, lost their lands and the empire made them either slaves or serfs while making vast sums of money from their misery. All of those cultures deal with the repercussions of those times times still today.

Were they sticking up for the underdog while all that was happening?

As for the comment on the war, The Russians more than anyone defeated the Nazis, paid the heaviest price too. The Nazis suffered 3/4 of their wartime losses to the Russians.

To put it into perspective, the UK suffered just over 380,000 military casualties in WW2. The Russians lost between 8-10 million.

Like em or loather them they saved Europe from the Nazis far more than anyone else did. Even the Germans agree.

I’m debating whether or not to take this drivel seriously.

I’ll have a think and get back to you.

Tyrone Biggums · Nov 21, 2018

Leighgull said:
I’m debating whether or not to take this drivel seriously.

I’ll have a think and get back to you.

You'd probably be better going back over the drivel you wrote.

I believe that England, and Englishness, fair play, sticking up for the underdog, and our legacy of empire is (irrespective of the racism that capitulation engendered) is a massive influence on the world today. We saved Europe from the “Dark Science” of Nazism and dashed our empire on the rocks of Those who would enslave mankind.

Not a bad account all in all.

Start at the fair play drivel for a laugh.

daveinplzen · Nov 21, 2018

Leighgull said:
I’m debating whether or not to take this drivel seriously.

I’ll have a think and get back to you.

Think you should do as its true. We held on long enough for everybody else to get involved in the war, and gave a good account of ourselves, particularly in the air war, that deserves credit, but we didnt 'win' the war in Europe. The Russians did.

Leighgull · Nov 21, 2018

OK.

I’ll give it a whirl.

Where did you get the idea that the British empire (begun in the 18th century) was meant to be anything but a self serving exercise? Did I make outlandish claims that my views on our part in it were entirely benevolent?

What I will say is this.

During the age of Empire Britain was one of the MOST benevolent unless you would like to defend Germany in west Africa, France in North Africa and the East, The Dutch, The Spanish, The Italians in Abyssinia (total massacre)

Simply put. We had an industrial revolution which began to consume raw materials at an unbelievable rate and, frankly, we had the Navy to go and, well, take it.

But. It is forgotten that our preferred method was to BUY what we needed rather than steal it. I point you to the British East India company.

In India, for example, we were faced with a plethora of princes and fiefdoms, all of whom hated each other. The British were, therefore forced to side with whichever was the most pro Britain...hence “Gunboat diplomacy”

What transpired was, for the first time, a United India under the Raj. Gone were the brutal little God’s who used to treat the locals a lot less well than us. even Ghandi conceded the positives of British law, tax, low corruptibility and opportunities to protest. I point you to his end of Childhood speeches. I simply cannot imagine the French tolerating peaceful sit down protest in their dominions, or the Germans for that matter.

In short. What should we have done. Started the industrial revolution then allowed the other European powers to run around the world, snapping up all resources, then paying them whatever they asked? I suppose our huge navy should have sailed the world throwing petals of peace while the mills in Yorkshire ground to a halt.

While we were at it we outlawed slavery, arresting American slavers at sea and freeing their captives...we even had many African sailors in our Navy because we freed them.

This idea that we are evil is why we now have no pride in ourselves, no faith in our people, our institutions or our legacy. For shame.

Leighgull · Nov 21, 2018

daveinplzen said:
Think you should do as its true. We held on long enough for everybody else to get involved in the war, and gave a good account of ourselves, particularly in the air war, that deserves credit, but we didnt 'win' the war in Europe. The Russians did.

No. No we didn’t.

What we did was guarantee to enter the war if Germany did not withdraw from Poland. They didn’t so we went up against the pre-eminent European power because...well...we promised we would.

What we then did was to refuse Hitlers offers of peace, we turned him down flat. Because...Well the Nazis were just not a suitable alternative to European democracy.

We then spent a couple of years basically getting pasted whilst, quietly, matching and, by 1941, exceeding German war production

When we had fought the Nazis to a standstill at sea and in the air,whilst thousands of Sailors drowned running the wolf pack gauntlet hundreds of pilots died defending our skies and thousands of people were killed in the Blitz....through all of that...what we didn’t do was surrender and let our Jews and Gays get marched off to treblinka or Sobibor.

People trot out this “ we waited to get saved” pap. Do you honestly believe that?

Germany declared war on America mate. Not the other way round...and how much more success would Barbarossa have been if the entire Luftwaffe had been available to Hitler? He had thousands of fighters and Bombers in France trying to break us don’t forget. Let alone the half million flack gunners defending Germany and hundreds of their mobile 88 guns kept busy trying to knock out the RAF.

It makes me sick that people alive today who don’t give a flying F**k for this country scoff at what we achieved in WW2.

Leave the ignorance to the Americans.

P.s. you have a point about the USSR.

daveinplzen · Nov 21, 2018

Leighgull said:
OK.

I’ll give it a whirl.

Where did you get the idea that the British empire (begun in the 18th century) was meant to be anything but a self serving exercise? Did I make outlandish claims that my views on our part in it were entirely benevolent?

What I will say is this.

During the age of Empire Britain was one of the MOST benevolent unless you would like to defend Germany in west Africa, France in North Africa and the East, The Dutch, The Spanish, The Italians in Abyssinia (total massacre)

Simply put. We had an industrial revolution which began to consume raw materials at an unbelievable rate and, frankly, we had the Navy to go and, well, take it.

But. It is forgotten that our preferred method was to BUY what we needed rather than steal it. I point you to the British East India company.

In India, for example, we were faced with a plethora of princes and fiefdoms, all of whom hated each other. The British were, therefore forced to side with whichever was the most pro Britain...hence “Gunboat diplomacy”

What transpired was, for the first time, a United India under the Raj. Gone were the brutal little God’s who used to treat the locals a lot less well than us. even Ghandi conceded the positives of British law, tax, low corruptibility and opportunities to protest. I point you to his end of Childhood speeches. I simply cannot imagine the French tolerating peaceful sit down protest in their dominions, or the Germans for that matter.

In short. What should we have done. Started the industrial revolution then allowed the other European powers to run around the world, snapping up all resources, then paying them whatever they asked? I suppose our huge navy should have sailed the world throwing petals of peace while the mills in Yorkshire ground to a halt.

While we were at it we outlawed slavery, arresting American slavers at sea and freeing their captives...we even had many African sailors in our Navy because we freed them.

This idea that we are evil is why we now have no pride in ourselves, no faith in our people, our institutions or our legacy. For shame.

You realise the British oversaw cataclysmic famines in India yeah? Obviously, it didnt stop the British sending food to Britain. We also managed to create false borders pretty much everywhere we went, that causes problems to this day. Im not scoffing at British achievements, but I wont deny its many failures either.

ps.. if Americans trot out the ...we saved your arses in ww2, just say, no, you assisted the British in liberating occupied Europe. Thank you. :lol:

Leighgull · Nov 21, 2018

I’ve just realised.

I can’t win this with facts because my opponents are hard of thinking.

Pointless trying to educate idiots.

Tyrone Biggums · Nov 21, 2018

Leighgull said:
OK.

I’ll give it a whirl.

Where did you get the idea that the British empire (begun in the 18th century) was meant to be anything but a self serving exercise? Did I make outlandish claims that my views on our part in it were entirely benevolent?

What I will say is this.

During the age of Empire Britain was one of the MOST benevolent unless you would like to defend Germany in west Africa, France in North Africa and the East, The Dutch, The Spanish, The Italians in Abyssinia (total massacre)

Simply put. We had an industrial revolution which began to consume raw materials at an unbelievable rate and, frankly, we had the Navy to go and, well, take it.

But. It is forgotten that our preferred method was to BUY what we needed rather than steal it. I point you to the British East India company.

In India, for example, we were faced with a plethora of princes and fiefdoms, all of whom hated each other. The British were, therefore forced to side with whichever was the most pro Britain...hence “Gunboat diplomacy”

What transpired was, for the first time, a United India under the Raj. Gone were the brutal little God’s who used to treat the locals a lot less well than us. even Ghandi conceded the positives of British law, tax, low corruptibility and opportunities to protest. I point you to his end of Childhood speeches. I simply cannot imagine the French tolerating peaceful sit down protest in their dominions, or the Germans for that matter.

In short. What should we have done. Started the industrial revolution then allowed the other European powers to run around the world, snapping up all resources, then paying them whatever they asked? I suppose our huge navy should have sailed the world throwing petals of peace while the mills in Yorkshire ground to a halt.

While we were at it we outlawed slavery, arresting American slavers at sea and freeing their captives...we even had many African sailors in our Navy because we freed them.

This idea that we are evil is why we now have no pride in ourselves, no faith in our people, our institutions or our legacy. For shame.

How much was paid to the indigenous Australians for one of the largest resource bearing lands on the planet?

What were the indigenous Irish paid?

Nobody defends any of the other colonising nations actions that I've ever read. It's generally seen as bad moments in history that have lead to many modern issues. To say one or another is the best of a bad lot still eaves it as part of the bad lot. Especially when it's all based on greed and power.

If I was putting forth reasons to like the English it would be coming from pointing out their inventors, their scientists, their arts, not their colonizing history.

Leighgull · Nov 21, 2018

daveinplzen said:
You realise the British oversaw cataclysmic famines in India yeah? Obviously, it didnt stop the British sending food to Britain. We also managed to create false borders pretty much everywhere we went, that causes problems to this day. Im not scoffing at British achievements, but I wont deny its many failures either.

ps.. if Americans trot out the ...we saved your arses in ww2, just say, no, you assisted the British in liberating occupied Europe. Thank you.

When you say “oversaw” I guess you mean the monsoon crises that decimated rice crops, tea crops, drowned thousands.is that it “yeah”

I don’t know if you realise what plantation farming entails.? It meant that British plantation owners paid people who, historically, would die of hunger on an annual and biblical basis (because of said Monsoons) to terrace the land and improve sidings, drainage, roads to allow them to sell their goods locally AND internationally.

Terracing reduced the annual catastrophic mudslides which would, literally, wipe out small towns.

So. Here we are. We have Plantations. Admittedly run by deeply racist types, paying people to do work that, previously they had been indentured to do by the Rajahs. Those people, within 100 years formed the Indian CivilService and Railway managers which served India in becoming a behemoth. And, post independence, still function today.

You might next bring up the Irish potato famine ( which directly affected my family) and the Highland clearances (again affecting my family) as evidence of mismanagement...god knows there’s a lot of it. But do t blame natural disasters on the Empire...Yeah?

Leighgull · Nov 21, 2018

Tyrone Biggums said:
How much was paid to the indigenous Australians for one of the largest resource bearing lands on the planet?

What were the indigenous Irish paid?

Nobody defends any of the other colonising nations actions that I've ever read. It's generally seen as bad moments in history that have lead to many modern issues. To say one or another is the best of a bad lot still eaves it as part of the bad lot. Especially when it's all based on greed and power.

If I was putting forth reasons to like the English it would be coming from pointing out their inventors, their scientists, their arts, not their colonizing history.

I am defending our REASONS for empire building. I absolutely am. If you look at the reality in 1780 you would agree that Britain HAD to control the seas, finance, commerce and raw materials. If not us...Who? The French? Behave...really?

There was no Germany then, Spain was a brutal and relentless colonising power, as were the Portuguese. We kept their excess in check. The Dutch...nah.

We just did what we had to do to protect free trade...which was what the Empire was. What it became...a racist, proto Royalist mess was the reason it fell.

When we left India the Hindu and Muslim locals went batshit crazy killing millions of their countrymen that our army had kept apart for 100 years.

Yeah. Yeah. We were Soooo. Like evil yeah?

Publius Ovidius · Nov 21, 2018

dangull said:
A lot of it is due to historical reasons. English domination of the British isles and the Empire over seas.
Most sensible people know that's all in the past though, like I don't have any issue with Italians despite the Roman occupation a few years ago.

Don't get me started on the romans...having studied them for a few years, they were complete ******** to the Gauls and what we now term as Spanish. Not to mention the razing of Carthage and the complete annihilation of the city, its inhabitants, every plant tree animal insect...the whole lot. There is great romanticism of th Romans when in effect they were horrible people.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Leighgull · Nov 21, 2018

I remember a very long talk in Oz one night. I was in a bar with some right Aussie yahoos. Most of Irish or Scottish decent.

We were having this big debate. The initial premise of theirs was that sending convicts to van diemens land was a positive. Within a generation those convicts were freed. Men and women, and their children were tall, well fed and living well.

Most of the Irish went in the gold rush rather than the spud famine. And exiled republicans from England, Scotland and Ireland formed the robust Aussie outlook.

We al agreed that, had their ancestors stayed in Kerry, Glasgow or London would have been worse off than those in Australia.

There was 0 aggravation and everyone agreed, in the end, that a bad policy delivered a strong, robust tough independent land by accident I agree...but, it was English policy.

Leighgull · Nov 21, 2018

Tyrone Biggums said:
The whole bit where you painted a benevolent picture. Seems to gloss over the long part in history when indigenous cultures were invaded, killed, lost their lands and the empire made them either slaves or serfs while making vast sums of money from their misery. All of those cultures deal with the repercussions of those times times still today.

Were they sticking up for the underdog while all that was happening?

As for the comment on the war, The Russians more than anyone defeated the Nazis, paid the heaviest price too. The Nazis suffered 3/4 of their wartime losses to the Russians.

To put it into perspective, the UK suffered just over 380,000 military casualties in WW2. The Russians lost between 8-10 million.

Like em or loather them they saved Europe from the Nazis far more than anyone else did. Even the Germans agree.

I’m debating whether or not to take this drivel seriously.

I’ll have a think and get back to you.

BrickTamland · Nov 21, 2018

Leighgull said:
I am defending our REASONS for empire building. I absolutely am. If you look at the reality in 1780 you would agree that Britain HAD to control the seas, finance, commerce and raw materials. If not us...Who? The French? Behave...really?

There was no Germany then, Spain was a brutal and relentless colonising power, as were the Portuguese. We kept their excess in check. The Dutch...nah.

We just did what we had to do to protect free trade...which was what the Empire was. What it became...a racist, proto Royalist mess was the reason it fell.

When we left India the Hindu and Muslim locals went batshit crazy killing millions of their countrymen that our army had kept apart for 100 years.

Yeah. Yeah. We were Soooo. Like evil yeah?

Go read some books about India before you spout rubbish like that please

Leighgull · Nov 21, 2018

I’m married to an indian lady mate.

Her entire family are Indians. Many of them fighting in the British Army ...and you. Are NOT my mate.

Just tell me where, factually, I’m wrong and I will demur.

Corrected. You never called me mate. Apologies.

portlock seagull · Nov 21, 2018

Bold Seagull said:
A choice of rhetoric, while 'we helped save Europe from Nazism' is a small grammatical change from 'we saved Europe from Nazism', it is a big difference to what those statements define.

I disagree - in football terms, Britain was the keeper making a vital save enabling a later winning goal scored by another team mate in extra time

BrickTamland · Nov 21, 2018

Leighgull said:
I’m married to an indian lady mate.

Her entire family are Indians. Many of them fighting in the British Army ...and you. Are NOT my mate.

Just tell me where, factually, I’m wrong and I will demur.

Corrected. You never called me mate. Apologies.

Pakistan was created so Britian could maintain a military presence in the area which India wouldn’t allow. It was awfully prepared and took no account of the ethnic differences in the region (which the British had played off against eachother during the empire to kept control). It was a strategic plan with British goals in mind with little care for what would follow. To suggest the British troops had kept them apart is ridiculous

Mate :shrug:

Bold Seagull · Nov 21, 2018

portlock seagull said:
I disagree - in football terms, Britain was the keeper making a vital save enabling a later winning goal scored by another team mate in extra time

That is what I meant. If we were the keeper, the Russians were the spine of the team, and the Americans were the super subs that nicked the win in extra time!

portlock seagull · Nov 21, 2018

Bold Seagull said:
That is what I meant. If we were the keeper, the Russians were the spine of the team, and the Americans were the super subs that nicked the win in extra time!

Agree, I've got the Ruski's down more as your hard tackling no nonsense work horses - the engine room, sweating up and down the pitch and not to be messed with sort of like Charlie Oatway; where as the Yanks are more your incredibly frustrating fancy-dan wingers who can frustrate and amaze in equal measure. Very Knocky.

Obviously Palace are the Germans in this scenario...

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Humour] Does Everyone Hate the English?

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Why? Why us?

Well-known member

strong and stable with me, or...

Why? Why us?

Share this page