The St George's flag

First topic message reminder :

I recall all too well as a teenager the England 1966 WC victory over West Germany at Wembley.

It was a less complicated time then. But I don't recall seeing more than a tiny smattering of St George's flags. It was the Union 'Jack' that then prevailed.

And now it's all about local nationality. And the English are no longer exempt.

It's a sad reflection of our times that we've become so symbolistically nationalistic whilst politically and economically we become increasingly intertwined.

snoopster wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Pete, I'm jealous of your 'Kiwireddevil' emoticon combo

I'm just disturbed by it - it looks like the Red Devil is whipping the Kiwi... and I'm worried it might be a clue to knowing far more about Kiwireddevil than I want to know.

Is this way around any better?

roddersm wrote:

Sin é wrote:
In fairness to Mrs McAleese (not Robinson), she didn't create a fuss about where she had to walk and I don't think she was really offended by it. Just people thought that Martin was a bit ignorant - much like the criticism that Ronan O'Gara had for having his hands in his pocket when meeting the Queen (though, unlike Martin Johnson, O'Gara wasn't representing his country on that occasion).

Just on the apologising for being English - you can't get away from the fact that The British Empire had a huge effect on many people's lives/countries/history and generally, from their point of view, it wasn't for the best!

Apologies to all Irish posters out there, I did of course mean McAleese. I was joking though.

O'Gara was representing his country what are you talking about? Anyway who cares about that?

I think to say "generally" that the effect that the british had "wasnt for the best" is a bit unfair. It's certainly a gross generalisation.

ROG represents his country playing rugby. This was a long way from a rugby pitch - and I know the only ones who got wound up about both incidents were the media (and Brian O'Driscoll got very flustered).

I don't think its a gross generalisation to claim that in general, most countries/countries which were ruled by Britain would have preferred if Britain hadn't come near them in the first place. If what you think is true, the British Empire would still be expanding!

Kiwireddevil wrote:

snoopster wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Pete, I'm jealous of your 'Kiwireddevil' emoticon combo

I'm just disturbed by it - it looks like the Red Devil is whipping the Kiwi... and I'm worried it might be a clue to knowing far more about Kiwireddevil than I want to know.

Is this way around any better?

Then you would need to change your name to reddevilkiwi

Sin, to steal a MonthyPython gag:

What have the Romans ever done for us?

[quote="Kiwireddevil"]

snoopster wrote:

Is this way around any better?

Not really - either way around that tail looks like a whip to me, all switching them around does is make it look like the whipping is about to happen instead of happening.

I think Sin é is talking about preference. It doens't mean they would be better off (we'll never know). I certainly don't think this is exclusively a British Empire thing. Ask the Rwandan's if they're happy the Belgians created a racial seperation that resulted in genocide. I think mess people generally want to be left alone. I know I do.

[quote="snoopster"]

Kiwireddevil wrote:

snoopster wrote:

Is this way around any better?

Not really - either way around that tail looks like a whip to me, all switching them around does is make it look like the whipping is about to happen instead of happening.

Right, I'm sticking to then. And watch out for the whip

Couldn't you modify the kiwi so it's got horns

HammerofThunor wrote:I think Sin é is talking about preference. It doens't mean they would be better off (we'll never know). I certainly don't think this is exclusively a British Empire thing. Ask the Rwandan's if they're happy the Belgians created a racial seperation that resulted in genocide. I think mess people generally want to be left alone. I know I do.

A good point Thunor. I was aiming for a little light humour at people's tendency to remember the bad bits more than the good - it is a useful survival mechanism admittedly

HammerofThunor wrote:Couldn't you modify the kiwi so it's got horns

Possibly. Though I'm a data analyst by trade. All that creative stuff gets done up the other end of the office

HammerofThunor wrote:Couldn't you modify the kiwi so it's got horns

And be careful it doesn't look like there is a blindfold tied on!

Just a few things:

As I said on the other thread before it got locked, I think English (as well as British) patriotism exists, but I think it tends to be quite understated. In part because as a country of 40-odd million, it is less easy to define things that are clearly English than it is Scottish, Welsh or Irish. Also, maybe there's a greater tendency to identify yourself by region (spoken as someone Yorkshire born and raised) and to see the differences as much as the similarities between (for example) 'the North' and the Home Counties.

As for the oppression of outsiders by the powers of the British Empire, we didn't stop at the England borders - the Peterloo massacre was in Manchester.

Also, the Empire being a 'bad thing'? Only with historical revisionism do we get to it being a wholly oppressive and exploitative regime. Yes, bad things happened and were done in the name of the Crown, but it also brought a lot of development to large parts of the world - India for example would not be anything like it is today without the British influence (again, not wholly for the best, with Partition being the classic example of imperial high-handedness, but the Empire introduced both infrastructure and the politico-legal system that has allowed India to develop rapidly over the last few decades).

Doc
I'll have to introduce you to my in-laws next door neighbour - she never met her father because he had been posted to the Far East before she was born and was killed in Burma, so protecting part of our Empire from Japanese invasion.

Sin é wrote:

ROG represents his country playing rugby. This was a long way from a rugby pitch - and I know the only ones who got wound up about both incidents were the media (and Brian O'Driscoll got very flustered).

I don't think its a gross generalisation to claim that in general, most countries/countries which were ruled by Britain would have preferred if Britain hadn't come near them in the first place. If what you think is true, the British Empire would still be expanding!

Sin Rog was only meeting the queen because of the fact that he's an Irish rugby player. Look its not a big, I couldn't give a monkeys about that incident but I believe people should always respect other countries state officials and protocols.

Sin I just don't think that you are in a position to speak for every person colonised by Britain. Britain's foreign policy isn't just about colonisation you know? Also without Britain we wouldn't have had Pink Floyd, the Who, Led Zeppellin, Iron Maiden etc. !

Kiwireddevil wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I think Sin é is talking about preference. It doens't mean they would be better off (we'll never know). I certainly don't think this is exclusively a British Empire thing. Ask the Rwandan's if they're happy the Belgians created a racial seperation that resulted in genocide. I think mess people generally want to be left alone. I know I do.

A good point Thunor. I was aiming for a little light humour at people's tendency to remember the bad bits more than the good - it is a useful survival mechanism admittedly

I think we can take it as a given that most countries/peoples don't like being invaded by other countries/peoples even if they improve the sewege system

Sin é wrote:

Kiwireddevil wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I think Sin é is talking about preference. It doens't mean they would be better off (we'll never know). I certainly don't think this is exclusively a British Empire thing. Ask the Rwandan's if they're happy the Belgians created a racial seperation that resulted in genocide. I think mess people generally want to be left alone. I know I do.

A good point Thunor. I was aiming for a little light humour at people's tendency to remember the bad bits more than the good - it is a useful survival mechanism admittedly

I think we can take it as a given that most countries/peoples don't like being invaded by other countries/peoples even if they improve the sewege system

I dunno, after a spending a week in Christchurch in May and having to rely on a chemical toilet in the friend I was staying with's garage I'd have loved someone to invade and fix the sewers

(Just kidding )

Sin é wrote:

Kiwireddevil wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I think Sin é is talking about preference. It doens't mean they would be better off (we'll never know). I certainly don't think this is exclusively a British Empire thing. Ask the Rwandan's if they're happy the Belgians created a racial seperation that resulted in genocide. I think mess people generally want to be left alone. I know I do.

A good point Thunor. I was aiming for a little light humour at people's tendency to remember the bad bits more than the good - it is a useful survival mechanism admittedly

I think we can take it as a given that most countries/peoples don't like being invaded by other countries/peoples even if they improve the sewege system

I can agree with that

Sin é wrote:
I think we can take it as a given that most countries/peoples don't like being invaded by other countries/peoples even if they improve the sewege system

Well I suppose that depends how bad their sewage problem is....

No of course no one like being invaded or colonised against their will. However your comment that most peoples experience of the british empire was negative. I just think that is bit of a generalization.

Sin é wrote:I think we can take it as a given that most countries/peoples don't like being invaded by other countries/peoples even if they improve the sewege system

In the case of India though they were already part of a foreign Empire, just one that was starting to break up in bloody warfare and it was going to be the British or the French replacing it... and while a complete mess was made when the British left, at least they didn't create a Vietnam like the French did.

They were lucky to have us... kind of.

roddersm wrote:

Sin é wrote:

ROG represents his country playing rugby. This was a long way from a rugby pitch - and I know the only ones who got wound up about both incidents were the media (and Brian O'Driscoll got very flustered).

I don't think its a gross generalisation to claim that in general, most countries/countries which were ruled by Britain would have preferred if Britain hadn't come near them in the first place. If what you think is true, the British Empire would still be expanding!

Sin Rog was only meeting the queen because of the fact that he's an Irish rugby player. Look its not a big, I couldn't give a monkeys about that incident but I believe people should always respect other countries state officials and protocols.

Sin I just don't think that you are in a position to speak for every person colonised by Britain. Britain's foreign policy isn't just about colonisation you know? Also without Britain we wouldn't have had Pink Floyd, the Who, Led Zeppellin, Iron Maiden etc. !

Britain's foreign policy was about getting its paws on other countries natural resources like lead, tin, copper, gold, oil, food.

Without the McCartney & Lennon, Pink Floyd etc. would be performing Morris dancing.

In the case of India, it was a huge advantage that the English language was introduced. Indians from different parts of the country who would otherwise speak different languages to each other could communicate, and it's arguable that it wouldn't be the country it is today without it.

roddersm wrote:

Sin é wrote:
I think we can take it as a given that most countries/peoples don't like being invaded by other countries/peoples even if they improve the sewege system

Well I suppose that depends how bad their sewage problem is....

No of course no one like being invaded or colonised against their will. However your comment that most peoples experience of the british empire was negative. I just think that is bit of a generalization.

Mention one country who thinks it was a good thing then? (Not just the British Empire - any of the countries that Spain, France, Dutch ruled as well).

luckless_pedestrian wrote:In the case of India, it was a huge advantage that the English language was introduced. Indians from different parts of the country who would otherwise speak different languages to each other could communicate, and it's arguable that it wouldn't be the country it is today without it.

Same in Ghana - though slavery became a MASSIVE problem for them and the effects of it are still felt there.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:In the case of India, it was a huge advantage that the English language was introduced. Indians from different parts of the country who would otherwise speak different languages to each other could communicate, and it's arguable that it wouldn't be the country it is today without it.

The Scandinavians all manage to speak English without being invaded.

Maybe they would have been better off then being invaded by China - thats the most widely spoken language in the world.

That's a really weak argument, Sin. You know that the history of Indians speaking English and Scandinavians speaking English are completely different.

Also, it's not true that Chinese (Mandarin) is the most widely-spoken language in the world. More people might speak it than speak any other language, but that's not the same thing.

Sin é wrote:
Mention one country who thinks it was a good thing then? (Not just the British Empire - any of the countries that Spain, France, Dutch ruled as well).

I think you've left a few colonial powers of the list sin? I presume you boycotted Gladiator too in protest of the Roman empire?

Maybe you should go an speak to some people in these ex colonies to see what their view is before claiming to be able to speak for them. I certainly can't.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:In the case of India, it was a huge advantage that the English language was introduced. Indians from different parts of the country who would otherwise speak different languages to each other could communicate, and it's arguable that it wouldn't be the country it is today without it.

The Japanese seem to have managed very well without the aid of any western empire invader. Same for the Chinese* who have an incredible civilisation.

*I know various European countries were there.

Is Thailand the only Asian country that hasn't had an occupying force?

Sin é wrote:

luckless_pedestrian wrote:In the case of India, it was a huge advantage that the English language was introduced. Indians from different parts of the country who would otherwise speak different languages to each other could communicate, and it's arguable that it wouldn't be the country it is today without it.

The Japanese seem to have managed very well without the aid of any western empire invader. Same for the Chinese* who have an incredible civilisation.

*I know various European countries were there.

Is Thailand the only Asian country that hasn't had an occupying force?

No, the Burmese have invaded quite a few times. There's a story about a village that held out against the Burmese army for days which allowed the Thai army to get together. They even made their own cannon out of scrap metal.

Haven't all countries had an occupying force at some point?

roddersm wrote:

Sin é wrote:
Mention one country who thinks it was a good thing then? (Not just the British Empire - any of the countries that Spain, France, Dutch ruled as well).

I think you've left a few colonial powers of the list sin? I presume you boycotted Gladiator too in protest of the Roman empire?

Maybe you should go an speak to some people in these ex colonies to see what their view is before claiming to be able to speak for them. I certainly can't.

I should have added etc. to the list above (include China, Russia, Portugal etc). Since the Roman never invaded Ireland, I don't have a problem with them

Do you really think the American Indian, the Aborigines, the Maori, The Palestinians, and various indigenious people around the world are happy about the way things have worked out for them?

snoopster, knowing said gentleman as I do, I think you could be on to something there

Sin é wrote: Same for the Chinese* who have an incredible civilisation.

I think you'll find that China has done a good enough job of oppressing their own. Maybe you should speak to a few chinese citizens before holding it up as a shining example of a great civilization which has thrived without the aid of foreign invaders.

Sin, what happened to the native Americans is deeply sad. But it remains true that empires have benefited peoples in some respects too.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:That's a really weak argument, Sin. You know that the history of Indians speaking English and Scandinavians speaking English are completely different.

Also, it's not true that Chinese (Mandarin) is the most widely-spoken language in the world. More people might speak it than speak any other language, but that's not the same thing.

My point is that people will generally find some way of communicating. I was in the Sahara desert on holiday a couple of years ago. Our tour guide was about 22 and had never been to school. He could speak about 7 (European) languages well enough to communicate to a mixed group. (Trading is in their blood, so they have a facilitity with languages).

Warning this is a joke:
An Englishman was reminding an Irishman to be grateful to England for protecting Ireland from being invaded by Germany during World War II with the words, "Without us, you would be speaking German." Whereupon, the Irishman responded, "Without you, we'd be speaking Irish."

Sin é wrote:
Do you really think the American Indian, the Aborigines, the Maori, The Palestinians, and various indigenious people around the world are happy about the way things have worked out for them?

Sin that is an electic bunch and I'm not qualified to speak for how people in those countries feel. Anything I would say on those matters would be a personal opinion and not based on a great deal of personal experience so I'm not in a position to answer that.

My point is that I don't think you are either but please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that.

I suspect though that the answer would be a mixture of yes, maybes and defintely nos but I don't think you can just make a sweeping generalisation.

snoopster wrote:

Sin é wrote:I think we can take it as a given that most countries/peoples don't like being invaded by other countries/peoples even if they improve the sewege system

In the case of India though they were already part of a foreign Empire, just one that was starting to break up in bloody warfare and it was going to be the British or the French replacing it... and while a complete mess was made when the British left, at least they didn't create a Vietnam like the French did.

They were lucky to have us... kind of.

A nice job was done to create two strong countries (Pakistan & India) who now have the capability to blow the world up when they might have been better off faction fighting in their own villages with sticks rather than messing about with nuclear arms.

Sin, civilisations come and go, it's the natural way - as an example, back in 2500BC, the Egyptians, Mesoptamians and the peoples of the Indus valley were by most standards the most advanced* - roll time forward thru the Trojans, the Chinese, the Greeks, the Romans, etc., and it's quickly evident that different cultures will dominate across different periods

* and that doesn't even begin to explain what the English/Welsh (Brits?) were doing with Stonehenge, or the Scots with Callanish even before that or indeed the Irish at Carrowmore

The British Empire didn't give India and Pakistan nuclear weapons!

And your comment about them 'faction fighting in their own villages with sticks' says more about how you view them than you might realise.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:snoopster, knowing said gentleman as I do, I think you could be on to something there

I really don't want to know that you know him well enough to know that!

To shorten that by several "knows", I don't want to know!

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

luckless_pedestrian wrote:In the case of India, it was a huge advantage that the English language was introduced. Indians from different parts of the country who would otherwise speak different languages to each other could communicate, and it's arguable that it wouldn't be the country it is today without it.

The Japanese seem to have managed very well without the aid of any western empire invader. Same for the Chinese* who have an incredible civilisation.

*I know various European countries were there.

Is Thailand the only Asian country that hasn't had an occupying force?

No, the Burmese have invaded quite a few times. There's a story about a village that held out against the Burmese army for days which allowed the Thai army to get together. They even made their own cannon out of scrap metal.

Haven't all countries had an occupying force at some point?

It must be the only Asian country then that hasn't had a European conquerer which is fairly amazing considering all its neighbours did. Most countries would have had a foreign invader - and no doubt the natives wouldn't have been too happy about it either.

Sin é wrote:A nice job was done to create two strong countries (Pakistan & India) who now have the capability to blow the world up when they might have been better off faction fighting in their own villages with sticks rather than messing about with nuclear arms.

And you are sure that the same or worse wouldn't have been the case if the British Empire hadn't happened to India?
And that the people of India and Pakistan (And Bangladesh) would actually have prefered the other likely outcomes?
I'm not saying the British Empire only did good but it is a mistake to argue the rest of the World would have been better of if it had never existed because someone else would have filled that space - India might have not been partitioned but instead had centuries of war under the remains of the Moghul Empire or been taken over by the French and treated more harshly... or even the Belgian king and been the Congo on a grand scale. So the British Empire might have been a mixed bag but the most probable alternatives weren't exactly wonderful either.

It is the problem with looking back - it is too easy to just say something was bad without looking at the alternatives. The Native Americans too a degree as well - it is easy to see they were badly treated but it is worth remembering that some of the tribes were already carrying out genocidal wars against each other before the Europeans and later Americans made contact with them... so for some of them they were better off.

roddersm wrote:

Sin é wrote: Same for the Chinese* who have an incredible civilisation.

I think you'll find that China has done a good enough job of oppressing their own. Maybe you should speak to a few chinese citizens before holding it up as a shining example of a great civilization which has thrived without the aid of foreign invaders.

I know its not particularly rosy in the garden and China is an Oppressive Empire in its own right (something like 48 different nationalities 'amalgamated'). What I was really getting at here is that with their civilisation, they would be well able to build a road, dam, sewage system without the expertise of any European countries.

Sin é wrote:A nice job was done to create two strong countries (Pakistan & India) who now have the capability to blow the world up when they might have been better off faction fighting in their own villages with sticks rather than messing about with nuclear arms.

You are aware they not only had swords but muskets and canons?
The Mughal Empire is sometimes called the Gunpowder Empire, as it was conquered in wars where both sides made heavy use of firearms which was unique at the time in global history.
Unless by "sticks" you meant "firesticks?"

luckless_pedestrian wrote:The British Empire didn't give India and Pakistan nuclear weapons!

And your comment about them 'faction fighting in their own villages with sticks' says more about how you view them than you might realise.

No they didn't give them nuclear power. But by separating them they created a very powerful next door neighbour to India.

Your putting your (British) values on me about faction fighting. In Ireland in the 19th century, faction fighting was recreational violence! It got out of hand a bit and I suppose now its new form is gaelic football & hurling (when the different 'factions' (parishes/counties) meet up to beat one another at sport instead.

You'll be saying I'm oppressing you next!

Who'd have guessed that a bunch of Londoners waving Union Jacks (as it was then) / Flags (as is now de rigeur) back in '66 would have created such a stir?

I blame Portnoy. Such a prat for asking basic questions...

Lucky, you oppressor you!!

Help, help i'm being oppressed. (Once again thanks to Monty Python)

'Have I got a big nose, mum?'

'Stop thinking about sex!'

Between this thread and Portnoy blaming rugby for global warming I'm feeling opp(dep)ressed now too....

luckless_pedestrian wrote:You'll be saying I'm oppressing you next!

Being of the 'oppressed' I can take the high moral ground here.

Just for the record - no doubt the British Empire (and all the rest of them like Spanish etc) did some good. But it is a tad on the arrogant side to suggest to the 'oppressed' that it was good for them as they got roads, railways, English/French/Dutch language 'civilisation' when these railways etc were built to get stuff out like tin, gold, iron, timber, oil and food to feed the industrial revolution back in the various mother countries.

I've been playing devil's advocate a bit, Sin. It's no more accurate to say that the British Empire, or any other, was peachy than it is to say that it was wholly negative.