19th century vs 21st century europe
I do not think that Europeans gave us nothing: The Romans were more advanced in civil engineering than anything until the Inka started to rival them in road building and plumbing; the British gave us the Industrial Revolution; the French Revolution is one of the most wonderful achievements in human history in my mind.
But frankly, due to the reasons I have stated, I simply little sympathy for the current European powers when they get into trouble and I see no reason why I should change my views.
Why yes, Rhodesia is doing so much better now that it has thrown off the evil British Imperialist yolk.
Oh wait...
ICY
Pileated woodpecker
Joined: 17 May 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 192
Location: Hertfordshire England
I like the peaceful co-existence between European states we currently enjoy compared to the 19th century, even with Pax Britannica in place for a time. Although individual European countries have almost entirely lost their colonies (Britain still has a few overseas territories for example), I doubt I would benefit from either their continued existence or from living at a time when they were maintained.
I also don't share the pessimistic shown in some of the above posts. While Europe has lost much of its power, it is still not a region to be ignored. Britain and France, despite current financial difficulties, still wish to be able to project military power globally. Germany is still an economic power, ranked 4th largest economy in world in terms of gross domestic product in 2010 according to the World Bank as shown here http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATA ... es/GDP.pdf.
.
The French Revolution produced 20,000 dead during the Terror and unleashed Napoleon on the world. Are you still happy with that Revolution?
Vivre La France!
ruveyn
They did sack Rome and bump off the pope though, give them some credit.
Most of those are self-governing.
Gibraltar, for instance, is a tiny territory of 30,000 people who have, almost to a man, woman and child, determinedly wish to stay British. The referendums in 1967 and 2002 speak for themselves - 99% voted in favour of maintaining their links with the UK.
Bermuda, Britain's largest overseas territory is essentially completely independent with Britain only really remaining responsible for defence and international affairs.
Most of the other overseas territories are either too small, based in remote locations, do not wish for independence (they'd have far more costs and very few benefits), are menaced by hostile neighbours or are being used as military bases.
The combined population of Britain's overseas territories is under 200,000 people - i.e. about 0.3% of the population of the UK itself. None of the overseas territories are integrated with Britain.
France has more populous overseas territories, many of which are integrated to a greater or lesser extent with France. Five of them are considered fully part of France. 2.68 million people live in France's overseas departments and territories, making up 4% of the whole population of France and Territories.
ICY
Pileated woodpecker
Joined: 17 May 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 192
Location: Hertfordshire England
Most of those are self-governing.
Gibraltar, for instance, is a tiny territory of 30,000 people who have, almost to a man, woman and child, determinedly wish to stay British. The referendums in 1967 and 2002 speak for themselves - 99% voted in favour of maintaining their links with the UK.
Bermuda, Britain's largest overseas territory is essentially completely independent with Britain only really remaining responsible for defence and international affairs.
Most of the other overseas territories are either too small, based in remote locations, do not wish for independence (they'd have far more costs and very few benefits), are menaced by hostile neighbours or are being used as military bases.
The combined population of Britain's overseas territories is under 200,000 people - i.e. about 0.3% of the population of the UK itself. None of the overseas territories are integrated with Britain.
France has more populous overseas territories, many of which are integrated to a greater or lesser extent with France. Five of them are considered fully part of France. 2.68 million people live in France's overseas departments and territories, making up 4% of the whole population of France and Territories.
No offence to the inhabitants of the UK Overseas Territories you cite, but it doesn’t compare to ruling parts of North America (and a tiny part of South America at one point), Asia, Africa and Oceania as far as the power they give the ruling nation.
How did India benefit from the British Raj? During the terminal 17th century, the Mughals sold ships to Europeans, they had better rockets and guns than the Europeans and they had a far more peaceful society. The British took away India's ability to be self-sufficient and prevented the Indians from developing their industries. Why did the British not ally with Mughal India, the way the Song Chinese and the Chola Empire did in the High Middle Ages, or treat them benevolently, as the Mauryans did to the people of Kalinga, or protect them from invading armies, as the Ming Chinese did with Korea when the Japanese first invaded?
So take the chip off your shoulder and wise up.
_________________
Learn the patterns of the past; consider what is not now; help what is not the past; plan for the future.
-Myself
ICY
Pileated woodpecker
Joined: 17 May 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 192
Location: Hertfordshire England
I’d like to coin a new term: Former Colonist Syndrome
Definition: The inability to discuss European history without preoccupation with former colonies of European nations. In particular the need to defend colonialism and the treatment of native peoples by a person’s own nation from those believed to be critical of the home nation.
Definition: The inability to discuss European history without preoccupation with former colonies of European nations. In particular the need to defend colonialism and the treatment of native peoples by a person’s own nation from those believed to be critical of the home nation.
Perhaps because they are.
And Abgal64? That computer you type your bile on exists, in part, due to colonialism. Live in a Western country? It was created or influenced by colonialism. In fact, almost everything about the modern world we live in today is shaped, in some way or form, by colonialism and its effects and after-effects.
So you can take your attempt at guilt-tripping and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.
probably best not to, as it's a somewhat asinine argument to attempt to mitigate the role of white europeans in the slave trade by implicating africans. i don't even think we need to discuss this further.
not according to ghandi or the majority of his contemporaries in early 20th century india.
_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?
Adam Smith
Or the fact that, er, they're still doing it when Britain was the first to abolish it?
We've grown up; they haven't and a lot of them still behave like savages. Simples.
The struggle for India's independence did not reflect well on the British, I agree with that. That said, India benefitted from the infrastructure that the British installed in their country. We're not Belgians, after all.
ICY
Pileated woodpecker
Joined: 17 May 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 192
Location: Hertfordshire England
Definition: The inability to discuss European history without preoccupation with former colonies of European nations. In particular the need to defend colonialism and the treatment of native peoples by a person’s own nation from those believed to be critical of the home nation.
Perhaps because they are.
And Abgal64? That computer you type your bile on exists, in part, due to colonialism. Live in a Western country? It was created or influenced by colonialism. In fact, almost everything about the modern world we live in today is shaped, in some way or form, by colonialism and its effects and after-effects.
So you can take your attempt at guilt-tripping and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.
First point
I merely mention the UK Overseas Territories, with no mention of my view on their continued status or system of government and you reply with this.
Most of those are self-governing.
Gibraltar, for instance, is a tiny territory of 30,000 people who have, almost to a man, woman and child, determinedly wish to stay British. The referendums in 1967 and 2002 speak for themselves - 99% voted in favour of maintaining their links with the UK.
Bermuda, Britain's largest overseas territory is essentially completely independent with Britain only really remaining responsible for defence and international affairs.
Most of the other overseas territories are either too small, based in remote locations, do not wish for independence (they'd have far more costs and very few benefits), are menaced by hostile neighbours or are being used as military bases.
The combined population of Britain's overseas territories is under 200,000 people - i.e. about 0.3% of the population of the UK itself. None of the overseas territories are integrated with Britain.
France has more populous overseas territories, many of which are integrated to a greater or lesser extent with France. Five of them are considered fully part of France. 2.68 million people live in France's overseas departments and territories, making up 4% of the whole population of France and Territories.
Second point
When you’re making posts like the one below, for you to use bile as an adjective as you did seems hypocritical.
Or the fact that, er, they're still doing it when Britain was the first to abolish it?
We've grown up; they haven't and a lot of them still behave like savages. Simples.
The struggle for India's independence did not reflect well on the British, I agree with that. That said, India benefitted from the infrastructure that the British installed in their country. We're not Belgians, after all.
Third point
Regarding your last line in the first post of yours I quote, I can see your British stiff upper lip is in full effect .
.
The French Revolution produced 20,000 dead during the Terror and unleashed Napoleon on the world. Are you still happy with that Revolution?
Vivre La France!
ruveyn
Bang!
_________________
.