Undefined discussion subject.
Options
Comments
-
I am not sure you have read the earlier comments by Contrarian. If you have, language aside, I cannot understand why you find IshmaelZ's post disgusting.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a disgusting postIshmaelZ said:
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...contrarian said:
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.IshmaelZ said:
She got that off a poster on here, this morning:contrarian said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8662651/BBC-Songs-Praise-producer-compares-Rule-Britannia-Nazis-singing-gas-chambers.html
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Its not been a good day. It really hasn't
"Your overall position would be stronger if you admitted the existence of exceptions and edge cases. Consider, hypothetically, a patriotic German song written in the early 40s with a chorus which said that "True born Germans shall never ever ever be sent to death camps," and there's a valid historical claim that the song is really about, oooh, the fighting on the Russian front, not about Jews at all. Is that song OK? I know it's different, but what are the *relevant* differences?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.0 -
Are there any Tories here who would consider voting Labour, particularly those that voted New Labour once upon a time? What will Labour have to do to win your vote0
-
In the context of seeking out the far east, aus and nz markets he ticks the boxeswilliamglenn said:
Is that a spoof? "Ex-Australian PM Tony Abbott to be unveiled as Britain’s new trade deal supremo as Brexit deadline looms"CorrectHorseBattery said:1 -
He's hilariously useless Big GBig_G_NorthWales said:
In the context of seeking out the far east, aus and nz markets he ticks the boxeswilliamglenn said:
Is that a spoof? "Ex-Australian PM Tony Abbott to be unveiled as Britain’s new trade deal supremo as Brexit deadline looms"CorrectHorseBattery said:0 -
-
Thank you!Mexicanpete said:
I am not sure you have read the earlier comments by Contrarian. If you have, language aside, I cannot understand why you find IshmaelZ's post disgusting.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a disgusting postIshmaelZ said:
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...contrarian said:
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.IshmaelZ said:
She got that off a poster on here, this morning:contrarian said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8662651/BBC-Songs-Praise-producer-compares-Rule-Britannia-Nazis-singing-gas-chambers.html
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Its not been a good day. It really hasn't
"Your overall position would be stronger if you admitted the existence of exceptions and edge cases. Consider, hypothetically, a patriotic German song written in the early 40s with a chorus which said that "True born Germans shall never ever ever be sent to death camps," and there's a valid historical claim that the song is really about, oooh, the fighting on the Russian front, not about Jews at all. Is that song OK? I know it's different, but what are the *relevant* differences?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.0 -
Meanwhile, in "maybe the government does need help with its comms" news, this is the latest on masks in schools.
The policy is now that they're compulsory in lockdown areas, and optional elsewhere. The other important thing to note is that Jonathan Simons is a director at Public First, the consultants that the Cabinet Office keep giving emergency contracts to.
https://twitter.com/jonathansimons/status/12983495499547607041 -
Sorry, not getting your point.Philip_Thompson said:
Its not just the audience, they normally have a soprano there singing it.Nigelb said:
This garbage ?Big_G_NorthWales said:
I did not fall for it, I agree with him and it's time the BBC licence fee was abolishedNigelb said:
Indeed, totally unnecessary.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The anger in the over 75's over the licence fee and now this totally unnecessary barney over the proms just hastens the move to a subscription service for the BBCMaxPB said:
Yes, as I said, it feels like the BBC is being run by Tory sleeper agents. No one could be this tone deaf.Casino_Royale said:For those who still think this whole Proms row was confected a BBC producer writes..
This appears to be just cynical bollocks from Boris et al, which you’ve fallen for, Big_G.
Responding to the news of this year's changes, Mr Johnson told reporters: "I cannot believe... that the BBC is saying that they will not sing the words of Land Of Hope And Glory or Rule Britannia! as they traditionally do at the end of The Last Night of The Proms.
"I think it's time we stopped our cringing embarrassment about our history, about our traditions, and about our culture, and we stopped this general fight of self-recrimination and wetness.
"I wanted to get that off my chest," he added.
The BBC does not, and never has “sung the lyrics”. That would be the audience. Which is not going to be there this year.
As per the BBC - "For the avoidance of any doubt, these songs will be sung next year. We obviously share the disappointment of everyone that the Proms will have to be different but believe this is the best solution in the circumstances and look forward to their traditional return next year."
Can you clarify just what it is that you agree with the bluffing bullshitter about ?
https://twitter.com/bbcproms/status/1172981971279958016
This was last year, a mezzo-soprano singing on the stage while waving a flag. Very fun.
The idea there's no singers on the stage . . . have you ever even watched the Proms? Maybe you should familiarise yourself with what is being discussed before joining the conversation.0 -
it was simply the language to another poster, not the content of the argumentMexicanpete said:
I am not sure you have read the earlier comments by Contrarian. If you have, language aside, I cannot understand why you find IshmaelZ's post disgusting.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a disgusting postIshmaelZ said:
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...contrarian said:
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.IshmaelZ said:
She got that off a poster on here, this morning:contrarian said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8662651/BBC-Songs-Praise-producer-compares-Rule-Britannia-Nazis-singing-gas-chambers.html
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Its not been a good day. It really hasn't
"Your overall position would be stronger if you admitted the existence of exceptions and edge cases. Consider, hypothetically, a patriotic German song written in the early 40s with a chorus which said that "True born Germans shall never ever ever be sent to death camps," and there's a valid historical claim that the song is really about, oooh, the fighting on the Russian front, not about Jews at all. Is that song OK? I know it's different, but what are the *relevant* differences?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.0 -
Johnson's brand of comedy seems to be developing into a more sophisticated genre than his earlier Benny Hill tribute work.williamglenn said:
Is that a spoof? "Ex-Australian PM Tony Abbott to be unveiled as Britain’s new trade deal supremo as Brexit deadline looms"CorrectHorseBattery said:1 -
0
-
I had no problem with @IshmaelZ's post either, apart from the language which I hope they might apologise for.0
-
I voted for Blair (as HYUFD keeps reminding me) so not impossible but Starmer has a long way to go yet.CorrectHorseBattery said:Are there any Tories here who would consider voting Labour, particularly those that voted New Labour once upon a time? What will Labour have to do to win your vote
I truely have no idea who I will vote for in 2024, and at my age I may just be pleased to be able to vote then anyway3 -
And you know that because ????CorrectHorseBattery said:
He's hilariously useless Big GBig_G_NorthWales said:
In the context of seeking out the far east, aus and nz markets he ticks the boxeswilliamglenn said:
Is that a spoof? "Ex-Australian PM Tony Abbott to be unveiled as Britain’s new trade deal supremo as Brexit deadline looms"CorrectHorseBattery said:0 -
Thanks for the tip off.ThomasNashe said:
Tomorrow evening Radio 3 is repeating the 1987 Bernstein Mahler 5 with the VPO. I remember hearing that on the radio first time round. Justly regarded as one of the greatest proms of all time.dr_spyn said:
On one evening I went to hear The Vienna Philharmonic play in London at The Proms. I joined an enormous queue about 3 hours before kick off, and was one of the last ten to get in. This was in the days before podcasts and on demand iplayers.Stuartinromford said:
If you're ever in London in Summer, definitely go. Top notch performances, friendly crowd. Mostly totally unlike the Last Night. It's a lovely way to spend a summer evening.CorrectHorseBattery said:I genuinely couldn't give a toss about this issue, I would be a don't know/don't care on the YouGov poll, The Proms isn't my thing at all
I have been to some wonderful Prom concerts at The Royal Albert Hall. The BBC radio coverage is almost consistently good, though I feel that the TV coverage is hampered by celebrity presenters.
It is a great way to discover classical music.
One year I managed to get a ticket for the VPO at The Proms, was offered very silly money by touts, it was 8x face value, Heaven knows what the resale price would have been.
The Last Night can be a trial, some of the in jokes from the season ticket holders turn into tedious grandstanding. It can be great fun, if you are with friends.
0 -
Well the video above is a good example but my research tells me he didn't do a very good jobBig_G_NorthWales said:
And you know that because ????CorrectHorseBattery said:
He's hilariously useless Big GBig_G_NorthWales said:
In the context of seeking out the far east, aus and nz markets he ticks the boxeswilliamglenn said:
Is that a spoof? "Ex-Australian PM Tony Abbott to be unveiled as Britain’s new trade deal supremo as Brexit deadline looms"CorrectHorseBattery said:0 -
I guess Big Nige was unavailable.williamglenn said:
Is that a spoof? "Ex-Australian PM Tony Abbott to be unveiled as Britain’s new trade deal supremo as Brexit deadline looms"CorrectHorseBattery said:
It does rather smack of desperation and disorganisation to be ferreting about for a team at this point in the process.0 -
Don't even say things like that G, you'll outlive us allBig_G_NorthWales said:
I voted for Blair (as HYUFD keeps reminding me) so not impossible but Starmer has a long way to go yet.CorrectHorseBattery said:Are there any Tories here who would consider voting Labour, particularly those that voted New Labour once upon a time? What will Labour have to do to win your vote
I truely have no idea who I will vote for in 2024, and at my age I may just be pleased to be able to vote then anyway1 -
Hopefully he can legitimise the budgie trade and crack down on the smuggling.williamglenn said:
Is that a spoof? "Ex-Australian PM Tony Abbott to be unveiled as Britain’s new trade deal supremo as Brexit deadline looms"CorrectHorseBattery said:
1 -
We don't watch that much live TV but we have a Sky Q contract. Two Sky Q boxes which have the full Sky, Netflix and Disney+ packages on one box, its a fantastic piece of kit. Series link shows that we watch, mainly from Sky Witness or Sky Atlantic, but only because its convenient to do so we don't watch them live much.MaxPB said:
Yeah, we just dumped live TV after realising we don't watch it at all and getting the cheap NowTV sports subscription deal. Now we don't pay the licence fee. I don't care to pay BT for sports just for Champions League matches, I'll just catch the goals/highlights on Reddit. Netflix, Prime (which I have for deliveries rather than content), D+ and NowTV sports pretty much covers everything we watch. If Britbox becomes any good it might also be worth a fiver a month, but so far I'm not convinced.glw said:
I suspect that the BBC's share of young peoples viewing is absolutely dire. Even a year or two ago Netflix had overtaken ALL BBC output combined for the young. YouTube can't be far behind, and I wouldn't even be surprised if Disney+ is beating the BBC amongst child viewers right now. A telly tax for something that has essentially already died for the next generation of viewers is simply not going to work.Casino_Royale said:I think there's a constituency of thinking in the BBC that thinks to shed it's old audience and gain a younger (more diverse) one it has to actively signal against the values of the old one in order to get down with da kidz.
It's bats. They'll end up losing the older one (and the consensus for the licence fee) whilst gaining none of the younger one, who'll feel patronised and just laugh at them.
And everyone will switch to Netflix and Prime.
Technically though even if you dump live TV but watch live TV sport via Now TV the law says you must pay for a licence fee. That is insane.1 -
If Boris is still PM then it's all to play for in terms of my vote for Labour. However, if they're winning my vote then I expect they've lost 5 on the left so it's probably not worth it for them to try.CorrectHorseBattery said:Are there any Tories here who would consider voting Labour, particularly those that voted New Labour once upon a time? What will Labour have to do to win your vote
2 -
I doubt it but a kind thoughtCorrectHorseBattery said:
Don't even say things like that G, you'll outlive us allBig_G_NorthWales said:
I voted for Blair (as HYUFD keeps reminding me) so not impossible but Starmer has a long way to go yet.CorrectHorseBattery said:Are there any Tories here who would consider voting Labour, particularly those that voted New Labour once upon a time? What will Labour have to do to win your vote
I truely have no idea who I will vote for in 2024, and at my age I may just be pleased to be able to vote then anyway0 -
I have no doubt, you'll be going on for a long time yet, we're lucky to have you SirBig_G_NorthWales said:
I doubt it but a kind thoughtCorrectHorseBattery said:
Don't even say things like that G, you'll outlive us allBig_G_NorthWales said:
I voted for Blair (as HYUFD keeps reminding me) so not impossible but Starmer has a long way to go yet.CorrectHorseBattery said:Are there any Tories here who would consider voting Labour, particularly those that voted New Labour once upon a time? What will Labour have to do to win your vote
I truely have no idea who I will vote for in 2024, and at my age I may just be pleased to be able to vote then anyway0 -
0
-
BigG as he notes is one of our key swing voters on here, voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001 but Tory since and exactly the type of voter Starmer needs to win to become PM. Philip Thompson also falls into that category. Not sure if any other PBers do?CorrectHorseBattery said:Are there any Tories here who would consider voting Labour, particularly those that voted New Labour once upon a time? What will Labour have to do to win your vote
1 -
Yeah, well, I find there is nothing more annoying than being called stupid by someone who plainly actually is stupid. Language wise I tend to think that anything which is OK by the mods is OK, but I am happy to express some conventional remorse about any offence I may have unwittingly caused.Big_G_NorthWales said:
it was simply the language to another poster, not the content of the argumentMexicanpete said:
I am not sure you have read the earlier comments by Contrarian. If you have, language aside, I cannot understand why you find IshmaelZ's post disgusting.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a disgusting postIshmaelZ said:
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...contrarian said:
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.IshmaelZ said:
She got that off a poster on here, this morning:contrarian said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8662651/BBC-Songs-Praise-producer-compares-Rule-Britannia-Nazis-singing-gas-chambers.html
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Its not been a good day. It really hasn't
"Your overall position would be stronger if you admitted the existence of exceptions and edge cases. Consider, hypothetically, a patriotic German song written in the early 40s with a chorus which said that "True born Germans shall never ever ever be sent to death camps," and there's a valid historical claim that the song is really about, oooh, the fighting on the Russian front, not about Jews at all. Is that song OK? I know it's different, but what are the *relevant* differences?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.2 -
Big_G_NorthWales said:
I recently switched to Green Networks and they were very much cheaper than Eon who I had been with for a few yearsCyclefree said:Completely off topic, it is time for me to get a new gas/electricity contract.
2 questions for the PB Brains Trust: is it worth getting a Smart Meter? I have heard bad reports bout them.
Are Octopus Energy any good? They seem to offer the best 2 year fixed price deal.
Any others I should consider?
I do not have a meter as I have solar panels, and some say it is more difficult to switch if you have a meter, but I am not an expert on thatGallowgate said:@Cyclefree I use Octopus Energy and have had no problems whatsoever. They have a very easy to use website for submitting meter readings and managing the account also.
Thank you all.Foxy said:
I am with Octopus, on their green tarrif. Good value and good service. I dont think smart meters are being fitted at the moment.Cyclefree said:Completely off topic, it is time for me to get a new gas/electricity contract.
2 questions for the PB Brains Trust: is it worth getting a Smart Meter? I have heard bad reports bout them.
Are Octopus Energy any good? They seem to offer the best 2 year fixed price deal.
Any others I should consider?0 -
Good for you, you're a good poster please carry onIshmaelZ said:
Yeah, well, I find there is nothing more annoying than being called stupid by someone who plainly actually is stupid. Language wise I tend to think that anything which is OK by the mods is OK, but I am happy to express some conventional remorse about any offence I may have unwittingly caused.Big_G_NorthWales said:
it was simply the language to another poster, not the content of the argumentMexicanpete said:
I am not sure you have read the earlier comments by Contrarian. If you have, language aside, I cannot understand why you find IshmaelZ's post disgusting.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a disgusting postIshmaelZ said:
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...contrarian said:
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.IshmaelZ said:
She got that off a poster on here, this morning:contrarian said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8662651/BBC-Songs-Praise-producer-compares-Rule-Britannia-Nazis-singing-gas-chambers.html
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Its not been a good day. It really hasn't
"Your overall position would be stronger if you admitted the existence of exceptions and edge cases. Consider, hypothetically, a patriotic German song written in the early 40s with a chorus which said that "True born Germans shall never ever ever be sent to death camps," and there's a valid historical claim that the song is really about, oooh, the fighting on the Russian front, not about Jews at all. Is that song OK? I know it's different, but what are the *relevant* differences?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.1 -
Personally I find it bizarre. That 3 million were transported by Britain as slaves is deeply regrettable, but it is in no way comparable to a situation where 6 million Jews alone were put to death.IshmaelZ said:
Thank you!Mexicanpete said:
I am not sure you have read the earlier comments by Contrarian. If you have, language aside, I cannot understand why you find IshmaelZ's post disgusting.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a disgusting postIshmaelZ said:
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...contrarian said:
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.IshmaelZ said:
She got that off a poster on here, this morning:contrarian said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8662651/BBC-Songs-Praise-producer-compares-Rule-Britannia-Nazis-singing-gas-chambers.html
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Its not been a good day. It really hasn't
"Your overall position would be stronger if you admitted the existence of exceptions and edge cases. Consider, hypothetically, a patriotic German song written in the early 40s with a chorus which said that "True born Germans shall never ever ever be sent to death camps," and there's a valid historical claim that the song is really about, oooh, the fighting on the Russian front, not about Jews at all. Is that song OK? I know it's different, but what are the *relevant* differences?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.0 -
0
-
That is much appreciated - thank youIshmaelZ said:
Yeah, well, I find there is nothing more annoying than being called stupid by someone who plainly actually is stupid. Language wise I tend to think that anything which is OK by the mods is OK, but I am happy to express some conventional remorse about any offence I may have unwittingly caused.Big_G_NorthWales said:
it was simply the language to another poster, not the content of the argumentMexicanpete said:
I am not sure you have read the earlier comments by Contrarian. If you have, language aside, I cannot understand why you find IshmaelZ's post disgusting.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a disgusting postIshmaelZ said:
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...contrarian said:
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.IshmaelZ said:
She got that off a poster on here, this morning:contrarian said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8662651/BBC-Songs-Praise-producer-compares-Rule-Britannia-Nazis-singing-gas-chambers.html
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Its not been a good day. It really hasn't
"Your overall position would be stronger if you admitted the existence of exceptions and edge cases. Consider, hypothetically, a patriotic German song written in the early 40s with a chorus which said that "True born Germans shall never ever ever be sent to death camps," and there's a valid historical claim that the song is really about, oooh, the fighting on the Russian front, not about Jews at all. Is that song OK? I know it's different, but what are the *relevant* differences?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.0 -
Thanks HorseCorrectHorseBattery said:
I have no doubt, you'll be going on for a long time yet, we're lucky to have you SirBig_G_NorthWales said:
I doubt it but a kind thoughtCorrectHorseBattery said:
Don't even say things like that G, you'll outlive us allBig_G_NorthWales said:
I voted for Blair (as HYUFD keeps reminding me) so not impossible but Starmer has a long way to go yet.CorrectHorseBattery said:Are there any Tories here who would consider voting Labour, particularly those that voted New Labour once upon a time? What will Labour have to do to win your vote
I truely have no idea who I will vote for in 2024, and at my age I may just be pleased to be able to vote then anyway3 -
Well he would be useful negotiating with Morrison's government and the Trump administration and Modi, maybe less so with ChinaCorrectHorseBattery said:0 -
I think smart meters are a waste of time.Cyclefree said:Completely off topic, it is time for me to get a new gas/electricity contract.
2 questions for the PB Brains Trust: is it worth getting a Smart Meter? I have heard bad reports bout them.
Are Octopus Energy any good? They seem to offer the best 2 year fixed price deal.
Any others I should consider?
I use Avro. Good value and easy to deal with.0 -
Ah! I get it! An Australia-style trade deal!!!HYUFD said:
Well he would be useful negotiating with Morrison's government and the Trump administration, maybe less so with ChinaCorrectHorseBattery said:2 -
I wonder how long it's going to be before those lucky schoolkids are being asked to wear their masks all day when inside, classroom distancing or not.1
-
Tony Abbott think No Deal is no problem for “the country that saw off Hitler, the Kaiser, Napoleon and the Spanish Armada”.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/no-deal-no-problem
1 -
Kind of the same explanation.IshmaelZ said:
That's right, but even if it wasn't the sheer numbers speak for themselves. It feels like being in an episode of Father Ted when you find yourself floundering for a way of explaining that 3,000,000 is a larger number than 150,000.Foxy said:
Our relationship with slavery was more complex than contrarian suggests after 1808. We did after all not free the slaves for a further quarter century, and even after that used indentured Asian labourers, trafficked across the world to Trinidad, Guyana, Mauritius and Fiji. A cynic may even suggest that the British policy was to prevent competition to British plantations from rivals with slave imports. The Lancashire cotton industry was also heavily dependent on slave produced cotton from the Southern USA.IshmaelZ said:
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...contrarian said:
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.IshmaelZ said:
She got that off a poster on here, this morning:contrarian said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8662651/BBC-Songs-Praise-producer-compares-Rule-Britannia-Nazis-singing-gas-chambers.html
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Its not been a good day. It really hasn't
"Your overall position would be stronger if you admitted the existence of exceptions and edge cases. Consider, hypothetically, a patriotic German song written in the early 40s with a chorus which said that "True born Germans shall never ever ever be sent to death camps," and there's a valid historical claim that the song is really about, oooh, the fighting on the Russian front, not about Jews at all. Is that song OK? I know it's different, but what are the *relevant* differences?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.
The 3 million out there were far away...0 -
Extremely unlikely for me.CorrectHorseBattery said:Are there any Tories here who would consider voting Labour, particularly those that voted New Labour once upon a time? What will Labour have to do to win your vote
I have always been right-wing, I grew up in Australia and supported John Howard, but voted for Labour in 2001 because:
* I was 18
* I thought that Blair and Brown were following good economic policies and not overspending (that changed after the election), that "Iron Chancellor" Brown was following Tory economic policies.
* There wasn't much of a difference between Labour and Tories
* The Tories wouldn't stop banging on about Europe and I was a Europhile at the time
* I felt that Hague was bonkers
* I felt that the Tories needed more time in opposition to regain sanity
In 2005 I still felt the Tories should lose, but also felt that Brown was dangerously overspending so switched to the Tories knowing we'd lose but wanting to reduce Blair & Brown's majority. 2010 onwards I've felt Labour completely unfit for office, as I felt about the Tories in 2001 and to a lesser extent 2005.
After being burnt by Brown's bait & switch on spending in 2001 I'm unlikely to ever trust Labour again. I doubt I'll ever vote for them again. But I would be tempted if the following applied.
* I would need to feel the current Tories were unfit for office.
* I would need to feel that Labour wouldn't do much damage.
* I would need to feel that Labour wouldn't overspend or overtax too much.
In other words I'd need to think that Labour would be pretty close to what the Tories would normally be, and that the Tories are not there.1 -
The real prize is the TPPAMexicanpete said:
Ah! I get it! An Australia-style trade deal!!!HYUFD said:
Well he would be useful negotiating with Morrison's government and the Trump administration, maybe less so with ChinaCorrectHorseBattery said:1 -
Has he said which country it is that saw off the Spanish Armada?williamglenn said:Tony Abbott think No Deal is no problem for “the country that saw off Hitler, the Kaiser, Napoleon and the Spanish Armada”.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/no-deal-no-problem0 -
He's right.williamglenn said:Tony Abbott think No Deal is no problem for “the country that saw off Hitler, the Kaiser, Napoleon and the Spanish Armada”.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/no-deal-no-problem0 -
My great-grandfather captained a ship in the South Seas assigned to hunt for slave=traders. He discovered that the New South Wales government was shutting a blind eye to shipping local natives in chains to the French colonies, which needed extra labour. He wrote a book about it which is available free online and makes an interesting read:Foxy said:
Our relationship with slavery was more complex than contrarian suggests after 1808. We did after all not free the slaves for a further quarter century, and even after that used indentured Asian labourers, trafficked across the world to Trinidad, Guyana, Mauritius and Fiji. A cynic may even suggest that the British policy was to prevent competition to British plantations from rivals with slave imports. The Lancashire cotton industry was also heavily dependent on slave produced cotton from the Southern USA.
https://ia902606.us.archive.org/28/items/kidnappinginsou02palmgoog/kidnappinginsou02palmgoog.pdf
setting out the case pretty conclusively. The NSW authorities complained to London, who persuaded Parliament to order him to apologise. It looks like a stitch-up to me, but I'm rather proud of him for making the effort - as a serving officer it was clearly not a good career move to offend the colonial authorities.
I've inherited his astonishingly good paintings of the period, and have been trying to find a publisher who might be interested in the story with the illustration, but no luck. If anyone has any suggestions I'd be glad to hear them - not expecting to make much money out of it, if any, but it's an interesting story enhanced by the pictures and it's a pity that they're just sitting in my cupboard.5 -
Yes, you thought I thought she was commenting in an official capacity for the BBC?Nigelb said:
URC Christian. Exec Producer of BBC’s Songs of Praise. CEO of http://ninelivesmedia.co.uk Campaigner for a better world. All views are my own.Casino_Royale said:For those who still think this whole Proms row was confected a BBC producer writes..
https://twitter.com/catrionalewis/status/1298150530418704385?s=191 -
Not too late for Trump - he can still do it!rottenborough said:0 -
Considering much of the Armada was wrecked on the coast of Scotland, it could be classed as an early joint effort.Theuniondivvie said:
Has he said which country it is that saw off the Spanish Armada?williamglenn said:Tony Abbott think No Deal is no problem for “the country that saw off Hitler, the Kaiser, Napoleon and the Spanish Armada”.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/no-deal-no-problem0 -
They can already be prosecuted under certain circumstances. However there is also the military compact: soldiers are doing a difficult and dangerous job on behalf of the country as deserve protection. If they breach the rules of engagement there are remedies.CorrectHorseBattery said:
Do you believe soldiers should be immune from prosecution?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Has Corbyn come back ?CorrectHorseBattery said:https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/aug/25/labour-calls-for-halt-of-bill-shielding-uk-soldiers-from-prosecution
This is going to go down badly but I think it is the right thing to do, nobody is immune from prosecution
I think it doesn't look good publicly but I can't say I disagree with their position on this
But what we saw in Iraq and subsequently was the weaponisation of the courts by people who disapproved of the civil decision to fight a way in Iraq2 -
He’s deluded.Philip_Thompson said:
He's right.williamglenn said:Tony Abbott think No Deal is no problem for “the country that saw off Hitler, the Kaiser, Napoleon and the Spanish Armada”.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/no-deal-no-problem1 -
Why all this fuss about LNOTP? It is the same songs every year, so just watch a repeat of an old one.1
-
I can compare it. On the numbers, 3 is half of 6 but if you assume a minimum of two generations descended from the 3 million living under conditions amounting to an atrocity, the numbers at least even out. As for the quality of atrocity, is it obvious to you which was the more unfortunate, the passenger waiting for a train to Auschwitz or for a slave ship to New Orleans? It isn’t to me.Luckyguy1983 said:
Personally I find it bizarre. That 3 million were transported by Britain as slaves is deeply regrettable, but it is in no way comparable to a situation where 6 million Jews alone were put to death.IshmaelZ said:
Thank you!Mexicanpete said:
I am not sure you have read the earlier comments by Contrarian. If you have, language aside, I cannot understand why you find IshmaelZ's post disgusting.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a disgusting postIshmaelZ said:
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...contrarian said:
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.IshmaelZ said:
She got that off a poster on here, this morning:contrarian said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8662651/BBC-Songs-Praise-producer-compares-Rule-Britannia-Nazis-singing-gas-chambers.html
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Its not been a good day. It really hasn't
"Your overall position would be stronger if you admitted the existence of exceptions and edge cases. Consider, hypothetically, a patriotic German song written in the early 40s with a chorus which said that "True born Germans shall never ever ever be sent to death camps," and there's a valid historical claim that the song is really about, oooh, the fighting on the Russian front, not about Jews at all. Is that song OK? I know it's different, but what are the *relevant* differences?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.1 -
That's not dissimilar to what you recently thought about Watford.Ave_it said:
Not too late for Trump - he can still do it!rottenborough said:0 -
That's in line with uniform swing, isn't it? Clinton won the national vote narrowly. Biden has improved on her score if the polls are correct, and is doing neither better nor worse, relatively speaking, in the swing states. He's clearly ahead but it remains too close for comfort.rottenborough said:
0 -
We're already 12 points clear of Sheffield Wednesday!Mexicanpete said:
That's not dissimilar to what you recently thought about Watford.Ave_it said:
Not too late for Trump - he can still do it!rottenborough said:0 -
Way to close for comfort for me. Dems need to avoid complacency.NickPalmer said:
That's in line with uniform swing, isn't it? Clinton won the national vote narrowly. Biden has improved on her score if the polls are correct, and is doing neither better nor worse, relatively speaking, in the swing states. He's clearly ahead but it remains too close for comfort.rottenborough said:0 -
Looks interesting. My own ancesters in Colonial Australia were involved in campaigning against the dubious trade in "coolie labour". They were Presbyterian ministers in the Australian goldfields (and later in Fiji).NickPalmer said:
My great-grandfather captained a ship in the South Seas assigned to hunt for slave=traders. He discovered that the New South Wales government was shutting a blind eye to shipping local natives in chains to the French colonies, which needed extra labour. He wrote a book about it which is available free online and makes an interesting read:Foxy said:
Our relationship with slavery was more complex than contrarian suggests after 1808. We did after all not free the slaves for a further quarter century, and even after that used indentured Asian labourers, trafficked across the world to Trinidad, Guyana, Mauritius and Fiji. A cynic may even suggest that the British policy was to prevent competition to British plantations from rivals with slave imports. The Lancashire cotton industry was also heavily dependent on slave produced cotton from the Southern USA.
https://ia902606.us.archive.org/28/items/kidnappinginsou02palmgoog/kidnappinginsou02palmgoog.pdf
setting out the case pretty conclusively. The NSW authorities complained to London, who persuaded Parliament to order him to apologise. It looks like a stitch-up to me, but I'm rather proud of him for making the effort - as a serving officer it was clearly not a good career move to offend the colonial authorities.
I've inherited his astonishingly good paintings of the period, and have been trying to find a publisher who might be interested in the story with the illustration, but no luck. If anyone has any suggestions I'd be glad to hear them - not expecting to make much money out of it, if any, but it's an interesting story enhanced by the pictures and it's a pity that they're just sitting in my cupboard.
Once the early gold rush petered out, the mines became consolidated by a few owners who cut costs by importing indentured Chinese Labour. As well as the racism of the Australian frontier, it was felt that they were undercutting the paid labourers.
My ancestors ran a hospital and very controversially for the time insisted on treating the Chinese workers equally, and on the same wards as the white Australians. They got some stick for doing so. My uncle has a rather magnificent silk banner given to my great grandfather by the chinese community of the town in thanks.
The story of Empire is a mixed one, a complex brew of being both exploiter and exploited, and delivered opportunity as well as degradation*. Even at the time there was controversy and realisation that a lot of what was going on was morally wrong, like the "blackbirding" trade your ancestor tried to expose.
*for example, having been chucked out of Speyside in the clearances, my family benefited by farming and mining land cleared of aborigines.0 -
You know who’s worse than those who try to shame all modern Britons for the Empire? Those who try to defend the Empire.1
-
When I've pointed this out I've been told, "no, they're not!"rottenborough said:
Way to close for comfort for me. Dems need to avoid complacency.NickPalmer said:
That's in line with uniform swing, isn't it? Clinton won the national vote narrowly. Biden has improved on her score if the polls are correct, and is doing neither better nor worse, relatively speaking, in the swing states. He's clearly ahead but it remains too close for comfort.rottenborough said:1 -
I really dont get the need to pretend that there was nothing bad about the Empire. There were good things that happened as well, but lots of terrible things - the same is true of all empires past and present and probably will apply in the future too. There is not much point studying history and then pretending it was all good.Gallowgate said:You know who’s worse than those who try to shame all modern Britons for the Empire? Those who try to defend the Empire.
3 -
This government is now so incompetent that they can't even do a U-turn properly.
What's the crack for kids who live in Bradford lockdown zone but attend school in North Yorkshire? They mask up while their classmates don't?0 -
The government should ask Sir Les Patterson to come out of retirement and bang the drum for Brexit.1
-
Auschwitz was a death camp designed to exterminate a whole race - by design. Being sent there guaranteed death. It explains why there are so few Jews in continental Europe today.IshmaelZ said:
I can compare it. On the numbers, 3 is half of 6 but if you assume a minimum of two generations descended from the 3 million living under conditions amounting to an atrocity, the numbers at least even out. As for the quality of atrocity, is it obvious to you which was the more unfortunate, the passenger waiting for a train to Auschwitz or for a slave ship to New Orleans? It isn’t to me.Luckyguy1983 said:
Personally I find it bizarre. That 3 million were transported by Britain as slaves is deeply regrettable, but it is in no way comparable to a situation where 6 million Jews alone were put to death.IshmaelZ said:
Thank you!Mexicanpete said:
I am not sure you have read the earlier comments by Contrarian. If you have, language aside, I cannot understand why you find IshmaelZ's post disgusting.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a disgusting postIshmaelZ said:
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...contrarian said:
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.IshmaelZ said:
She got that off a poster on here, this morning:contrarian said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8662651/BBC-Songs-Praise-producer-compares-Rule-Britannia-Nazis-singing-gas-chambers.html
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Its not been a good day. It really hasn't
"Your overall position would be stronger if you admitted the existence of exceptions and edge cases. Consider, hypothetically, a patriotic German song written in the early 40s with a chorus which said that "True born Germans shall never ever ever be sent to death camps," and there's a valid historical claim that the song is really about, oooh, the fighting on the Russian front, not about Jews at all. Is that song OK? I know it's different, but what are the *relevant* differences?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.
Slavery was a system of enforced subjucation and hard labour for life but wasn't designed to exterminate nor guarantee death, which would have lost owners money. That explains why there are many of African descent in the Carribbean and North America today.
So whilst both were despicable, the Holocaust was uniquely evil as it was designed to exterminate a whole race.
This shouldn't even need pointing out.0 -
That includes half of Leave votersGallowgate said:You know who’s worse than those who try to shame all modern Britons for the Empire? Those who try to defend the Empire.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1238516597339426824?s=20
39% of Leave voters and 38% of Tory voters even still want an Empire
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1238517490952605697?s=200 -
I suspect lots of schools will enforce masks now that they have permission to; at least for moving between classrooms.SandyRentool said:This government is now so incompetent that they can't even do a U-turn properly.
What's the crack for kids who live in Bradford lockdown zone but attend school in North Yorkshire? They mask up while their classmates don't?
0 -
Not according to 538.rottenborough said:
Biden is up 9.3% not 9% nationally. They have him as up by 8% in Wisconsin, 6.3% in Pennysylvania and 7.1% in Wisconsin. Win those and he's home. And if he doesn't win all three, there are others that could get Biden over the line given a bit of variable swing - most notably Florida and Arizona where he's currently 5.9% and 4.8% ahead respectively.
Biden's polling of 51.4% is also his highest polling yet, as the graph shows.
So yes, the electoral college sucks. But we've always know that. It shouldn't obscure from the fact that the polling now, in general, is nearly as good as it's been at any point for Biden. And there's now little more than 2 months to go for a recovery by a president whose disapproval rating is marked not only by its scale but also by its remarkable stability.1 -
The only empire this tory government are capable of running is the Brittas Empire.HYUFD said:
That includes half of Leave votersGallowgate said:You know who’s worse than those who try to shame all modern Britons for the Empire? Those who try to defend the Empire.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1238516597339426824?s=20
39% of Leave voters and 38% of Tory voters even still want an Empire
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1238517490952605697?s=204 -
Empires are racist and undemocratic.HYUFD said:
That includes half of Leave votersGallowgate said:You know who’s worse than those who try to shame all modern Britons for the Empire? Those who try to defend the Empire.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1238516597339426824?s=20
39% of Leave voters and 38% of Tory voters even still want an Empire
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1238517490952605697?s=200 -
The native Tasmanians say "hello" (or they would do had they not been exterminated).Casino_Royale said:
Auschwitz was a death camp designed to exterminate a whole race - by design. Being sent there guaranteed death. It explains why there are so few Jews in continental Europe today.IshmaelZ said:
I can compare it. On the numbers, 3 is half of 6 but if you assume a minimum of two generations descended from the 3 million living under conditions amounting to an atrocity, the numbers at least even out. As for the quality of atrocity, is it obvious to you which was the more unfortunate, the passenger waiting for a train to Auschwitz or for a slave ship to New Orleans? It isn’t to me.Luckyguy1983 said:
Personally I find it bizarre. That 3 million were transported by Britain as slaves is deeply regrettable, but it is in no way comparable to a situation where 6 million Jews alone were put to death.IshmaelZ said:
Thank you!Mexicanpete said:
I am not sure you have read the earlier comments by Contrarian. If you have, language aside, I cannot understand why you find IshmaelZ's post disgusting.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a disgusting postIshmaelZ said:
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...contrarian said:
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.IshmaelZ said:
She got that off a poster on here, this morning:contrarian said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8662651/BBC-Songs-Praise-producer-compares-Rule-Britannia-Nazis-singing-gas-chambers.html
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Its not been a good day. It really hasn't
"Your overall position would be stronger if you admitted the existence of exceptions and edge cases. Consider, hypothetically, a patriotic German song written in the early 40s with a chorus which said that "True born Germans shall never ever ever be sent to death camps," and there's a valid historical claim that the song is really about, oooh, the fighting on the Russian front, not about Jews at all. Is that song OK? I know it's different, but what are the *relevant* differences?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.
Slavery was a system of enforced subjucation and hard labour for life but wasn't designed to exterminate nor guarantee death, which would have lost owners money. That explains why there are many of African descent in the Carribbean and North America today.
So whilst both were despicable, the Holocaust was uniquely evil as it was designed to exterminate a whole race.
This shouldn't even need pointing out.0 -
Of course you can compare it, that is your right, but to do so only makes it look more ludicrous. Slavery was gravely unjust but it was not extermination. Your last question beggars belief. I doubt a single passenger on the Auschwitz train wouldn't have gladly swapped with those boarding a slave ship. And I doubt anyone on the slave ship would have willingly swapped with someone on their way to Auschwitz.IshmaelZ said:
I can compare it. On the numbers, 3 is half of 6 but if you assume a minimum of two generations descended from the 3 million living under conditions amounting to an atrocity, the numbers at least even out. As for the quality of atrocity, is it obvious to you which was the more unfortunate, the passenger waiting for a train to Auschwitz or for a slave ship to New Orleans? It isn’t to me.Luckyguy1983 said:
Personally I find it bizarre. That 3 million were transported by Britain as slaves is deeply regrettable, but it is in no way comparable to a situation where 6 million Jews alone were put to death.IshmaelZ said:
Thank you!Mexicanpete said:
I am not sure you have read the earlier comments by Contrarian. If you have, language aside, I cannot understand why you find IshmaelZ's post disgusting.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a disgusting postIshmaelZ said:
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...contrarian said:
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.IshmaelZ said:
She got that off a poster on here, this morning:contrarian said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8662651/BBC-Songs-Praise-producer-compares-Rule-Britannia-Nazis-singing-gas-chambers.html
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Its not been a good day. It really hasn't
"Your overall position would be stronger if you admitted the existence of exceptions and edge cases. Consider, hypothetically, a patriotic German song written in the early 40s with a chorus which said that "True born Germans shall never ever ever be sent to death camps," and there's a valid historical claim that the song is really about, oooh, the fighting on the Russian front, not about Jews at all. Is that song OK? I know it's different, but what are the *relevant* differences?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.0 -
They're undemocratic, certainly. They're not necessarily racist.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Empires are racist and undemocratic.HYUFD said:
That includes half of Leave votersGallowgate said:You know who’s worse than those who try to shame all modern Britons for the Empire? Those who try to defend the Empire.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1238516597339426824?s=20
39% of Leave voters and 38% of Tory voters even still want an Empire
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1238517490952605697?s=20
The Romans were notoriously unfussy about who they sold and shipped into and out of slavery, sometimes including members of their own extended families.2 -
They were a product of their time, they are unlikely to be coming back, Superpowers have taken their place. The USA and China may not have overseas territories but they project economic power and in terms of the US and Russia military power too when it suits, the EU is also seeking to join them as is IndiaSunil_Prasannan said:
Empires are racist and undemocratic.HYUFD said:
That includes half of Leave votersGallowgate said:You know who’s worse than those who try to shame all modern Britons for the Empire? Those who try to defend the Empire.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1238516597339426824?s=20
39% of Leave voters and 38% of Tory voters even still want an Empire
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1238517490952605697?s=200 -
Yes, perhaps a better comparison is with Albert Speers use of forced labour via the Todt organisation.Casino_Royale said:
Auschwitz was a death camp designed to exterminate a whole race - by design. Being sent there guaranteed death. It explains why there are so few Jews in continental Europe today.IshmaelZ said:
I can compare it. On the numbers, 3 is half of 6 but if you assume a minimum of two generations descended from the 3 million living under conditions amounting to an atrocity, the numbers at least even out. As for the quality of atrocity, is it obvious to you which was the more unfortunate, the passenger waiting for a train to Auschwitz or for a slave ship to New Orleans? It isn’t to me.Luckyguy1983 said:
Personally I find it bizarre. That 3 million were transported by Britain as slaves is deeply regrettable, but it is in no way comparable to a situation where 6 million Jews alone were put to death.IshmaelZ said:
Thank you!Mexicanpete said:
I am not sure you have read the earlier comments by Contrarian. If you have, language aside, I cannot understand why you find IshmaelZ's post disgusting.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a disgusting postIshmaelZ said:
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...contrarian said:
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.IshmaelZ said:
She got that off a poster on here, this morning:contrarian said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8662651/BBC-Songs-Praise-producer-compares-Rule-Britannia-Nazis-singing-gas-chambers.html
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Its not been a good day. It really hasn't
"Your overall position would be stronger if you admitted the existence of exceptions and edge cases. Consider, hypothetically, a patriotic German song written in the early 40s with a chorus which said that "True born Germans shall never ever ever be sent to death camps," and there's a valid historical claim that the song is really about, oooh, the fighting on the Russian front, not about Jews at all. Is that song OK? I know it's different, but what are the *relevant* differences?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.
Slavery was a system of enforced subjucation and hard labour for life but wasn't designed to exterminate nor guarantee death, which would have lost owners money. That explains why there are many of African descent in the Carribbean and North America today.
So whilst both were despicable, the Holocaust was uniquely evil as it was designed to exterminate a whole race.
This shouldn't even need pointing out.0 -
In fact, even the former isn't necessarily true since the British Empire tried (in almost all of its colonies) to move them to democratic models of self-governance prior to granting them independence.Casino_Royale said:
They're undemocratic, certainly. They're not necessarily racist.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Empires are racist and undemocratic.HYUFD said:
That includes half of Leave votersGallowgate said:You know who’s worse than those who try to shame all modern Britons for the Empire? Those who try to defend the Empire.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1238516597339426824?s=20
39% of Leave voters and 38% of Tory voters even still want an Empire
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1238517490952605697?s=20
The Romans were notoriously unfussy about who they sold and shipped into and out of slavery, sometimes including members of their own extended families.
The successor is the Commonwealth which celebrates those values.1 -
A better comparison is not to compare Britain to Nazi Germany at all.Foxy said:
Yes, perhaps a better comparison is with Aber Speers use of forced labour via the Todt organisation.Casino_Royale said:
Auschwitz was a death camp designed to exterminate a whole race - by design. Being sent there guaranteed death. It explains why there are so few Jews in continental Europe today.IshmaelZ said:
I can compare it. On the numbers, 3 is half of 6 but if you assume a minimum of two generations descended from the 3 million living under conditions amounting to an atrocity, the numbers at least even out. As for the quality of atrocity, is it obvious to you which was the more unfortunate, the passenger waiting for a train to Auschwitz or for a slave ship to New Orleans? It isn’t to me.Luckyguy1983 said:
Personally I find it bizarre. That 3 million were transported by Britain as slaves is deeply regrettable, but it is in no way comparable to a situation where 6 million Jews alone were put to death.IshmaelZ said:
Thank you!Mexicanpete said:
I am not sure you have read the earlier comments by Contrarian. If you have, language aside, I cannot understand why you find IshmaelZ's post disgusting.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a disgusting postIshmaelZ said:
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...contrarian said:
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.IshmaelZ said:
She got that off a poster on here, this morning:contrarian said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8662651/BBC-Songs-Praise-producer-compares-Rule-Britannia-Nazis-singing-gas-chambers.html
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Its not been a good day. It really hasn't
"Your overall position would be stronger if you admitted the existence of exceptions and edge cases. Consider, hypothetically, a patriotic German song written in the early 40s with a chorus which said that "True born Germans shall never ever ever be sent to death camps," and there's a valid historical claim that the song is really about, oooh, the fighting on the Russian front, not about Jews at all. Is that song OK? I know it's different, but what are the *relevant* differences?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.
Slavery was a system of enforced subjucation and hard labour for life but wasn't designed to exterminate nor guarantee death, which would have lost owners money. That explains why there are many of African descent in the Carribbean and North America today.
So whilst both were despicable, the Holocaust was uniquely evil as it was designed to exterminate a whole race.
This shouldn't even need pointing out.4 -
Ironically, of course "Commonwealth" means republic!Casino_Royale said:
In fact, even the former isn't necessarily true since the British Empire tried (in almost all of its colonies) to move them to democratic models of self-governance prior to granting them independence.Casino_Royale said:
They're undemocratic, certainly. They're not necessarily racist.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Empires are racist and undemocratic.HYUFD said:
That includes half of Leave votersGallowgate said:You know who’s worse than those who try to shame all modern Britons for the Empire? Those who try to defend the Empire.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1238516597339426824?s=20
39% of Leave voters and 38% of Tory voters even still want an Empire
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1238517490952605697?s=20
The Romans were notoriously unfussy about who they sold and shipped into and out of slavery, sometimes including members of their own extended families.
The successor is the Commonwealth which celebrates those values.
BTW how many Indian viceroys were elected by the Indian public?1 -
China is effectively exercising imperial rule in Tibet and in parts of Xinjiang.HYUFD said:
They were a product of their time, they are unlikely to be coming back, Superpowers have taken their place. The USA and China may not have overseas territories but they project economic power and in terms of the US and Russia military power too when it suits, the EU is also seeking to join them as is IndiaSunil_Prasannan said:
Empires are racist and undemocratic.HYUFD said:
That includes half of Leave votersGallowgate said:You know who’s worse than those who try to shame all modern Britons for the Empire? Those who try to defend the Empire.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1238516597339426824?s=20
39% of Leave voters and 38% of Tory voters even still want an Empire
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1238517490952605697?s=201 -
People think differently. Its a very morbid hypothetical but there will be a reasonable proportion who prefer the quicker death of Auschwitz than a lifetime as a slave. I dont know which option I would choose, would probably depend on my age at the time and therefore the chance of escaping the slavery at some later point. Without actually agreeing with it, I think it is far from a ludicrous comparison, quite interesting I thought.Luckyguy1983 said:
Of course you can compare it, that is your right, but to do so only makes it look more ludicrous. Slavery was gravely unjust but it was not extermination. Your last question beggars belief. I doubt a single passenger on the Auschwitz train wouldn't have gladly swapped with those boarding a slave ship. And I doubt anyone on the slave ship would have willingly swapped with someone on their way to Auschwitz.IshmaelZ said:
I can compare it. On the numbers, 3 is half of 6 but if you assume a minimum of two generations descended from the 3 million living under conditions amounting to an atrocity, the numbers at least even out. As for the quality of atrocity, is it obvious to you which was the more unfortunate, the passenger waiting for a train to Auschwitz or for a slave ship to New Orleans? It isn’t to me.Luckyguy1983 said:
Personally I find it bizarre. That 3 million were transported by Britain as slaves is deeply regrettable, but it is in no way comparable to a situation where 6 million Jews alone were put to death.IshmaelZ said:
Thank you!Mexicanpete said:
I am not sure you have read the earlier comments by Contrarian. If you have, language aside, I cannot understand why you find IshmaelZ's post disgusting.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a disgusting postIshmaelZ said:
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...contrarian said:
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.IshmaelZ said:
She got that off a poster on here, this morning:contrarian said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8662651/BBC-Songs-Praise-producer-compares-Rule-Britannia-Nazis-singing-gas-chambers.html
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Its not been a good day. It really hasn't
"Your overall position would be stronger if you admitted the existence of exceptions and edge cases. Consider, hypothetically, a patriotic German song written in the early 40s with a chorus which said that "True born Germans shall never ever ever be sent to death camps," and there's a valid historical claim that the song is really about, oooh, the fighting on the Russian front, not about Jews at all. Is that song OK? I know it's different, but what are the *relevant* differences?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.0 -
And only one was Indian!Sunil_Prasannan said:
Ironically, of course "Commonwealth" means republic!Casino_Royale said:
In fact, even the former isn't necessarily true since the British Empire tried (in almost all of its colonies) to move them to democratic models of self-governance prior to granting them independence.Casino_Royale said:
They're undemocratic, certainly. They're not necessarily racist.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Empires are racist and undemocratic.HYUFD said:
That includes half of Leave votersGallowgate said:You know who’s worse than those who try to shame all modern Britons for the Empire? Those who try to defend the Empire.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1238516597339426824?s=20
39% of Leave voters and 38% of Tory voters even still want an Empire
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1238517490952605697?s=20
The Romans were notoriously unfussy about who they sold and shipped into and out of slavery, sometimes including members of their own extended families.
The successor is the Commonwealth which celebrates those values.
BTW how many Indian viceroys were elected by the Indian public?0 -
The best chocolate ice cream I have ever bought from a supermarket was Green & Blacks, which I made a particular effort to find when I was making an ice cream cake. I forget whether this was before, or after, they were bought up by Cadburys and became part of an evil corporate behemoth.Casino_Royale said:
I've seen claims Ben and Jerry's are suffering but no evidence yet - have you?MaxPB said:
It's like Ben and Jerry's, they got into in an argument they had no need to get involved with. The BBC has walked into this and now they will pay the price as are Unilever wrt Ben and Jerry's. As a famous basketballer once said "republicans buy trainers too". Corporates and the BBC should just stay out of these rows and definitely not start them. Nothing is ever enough for the mob and even an inch is too much for majority and in almost all of these cases the majority is not woke.Philip_Thompson said:
Indeed. The BBC could have neutralised this easily and said its nothing to do with wokeness - they could have said that the music will be played but due to COVID its going to be different this year without an audience or a singer, but they look forward to it being back to normal next year. They didn't do that, they played into the culture war issue and then are surprised when others jump into it to. The BBC started this not the PM.MaxPB said:
Tbf, it's politics. The BBC handed him an opportunity, he took it. The stupidity lies with the BBC for pushing the woke agenda for a show that appeals to an older crowd that have no love for wokeism. It feels like the BBC has got Tory sleeper agents running it. The PM is in trouble over schools, virus and has got a popular chancellor breathing down his neck and the BBC chooses this exact moment to inflate a nothing row over some music that is ultimately meaningless.Stuartinromford said:
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.Philip_Thompson said:
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.Stuartinromford said:
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.Philip_Thompson said:
Is there going to be an audience?Richard_Tyndall said:When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
I bought their ice cream years ago (I didn't know they were Woke then) and thought it was crap: the "cream" was relatively little and melted quickly leaving you with large chunky and annoying bits you had to chew instead. Yum.
Haagen Dazs is far better. Of course, there's no guarantee they won't beat a path down the same road too.
Naturally, despite the quality, I haven't seen it in a supermarket for years.
The greatest danger to supermarket ice cream isn't Ben and Jerry's novelty flavours, it's all the overengineered crap with unfeasibly low numbers of calories that isn't made with enough of the basic ingredients of cream, egg yolks and sugar.0 -
Most of them are bad but some of the Oppo ones are both low calorie and taste good, salted caramel in particular.LostPassword said:
The best chocolate ice cream I have ever bought from a supermarket was Green & Blacks, which I made a particular effort to find when I was making an ice cream cake. I forget whether this was before, or after, they were bought up by Cadburys and became part of an evil corporate behemoth.Casino_Royale said:
I've seen claims Ben and Jerry's are suffering but no evidence yet - have you?MaxPB said:
It's like Ben and Jerry's, they got into in an argument they had no need to get involved with. The BBC has walked into this and now they will pay the price as are Unilever wrt Ben and Jerry's. As a famous basketballer once said "republicans buy trainers too". Corporates and the BBC should just stay out of these rows and definitely not start them. Nothing is ever enough for the mob and even an inch is too much for majority and in almost all of these cases the majority is not woke.Philip_Thompson said:
Indeed. The BBC could have neutralised this easily and said its nothing to do with wokeness - they could have said that the music will be played but due to COVID its going to be different this year without an audience or a singer, but they look forward to it being back to normal next year. They didn't do that, they played into the culture war issue and then are surprised when others jump into it to. The BBC started this not the PM.MaxPB said:
Tbf, it's politics. The BBC handed him an opportunity, he took it. The stupidity lies with the BBC for pushing the woke agenda for a show that appeals to an older crowd that have no love for wokeism. It feels like the BBC has got Tory sleeper agents running it. The PM is in trouble over schools, virus and has got a popular chancellor breathing down his neck and the BBC chooses this exact moment to inflate a nothing row over some music that is ultimately meaningless.Stuartinromford said:
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.Philip_Thompson said:
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.Stuartinromford said:
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.Philip_Thompson said:
Is there going to be an audience?Richard_Tyndall said:When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
I bought their ice cream years ago (I didn't know they were Woke then) and thought it was crap: the "cream" was relatively little and melted quickly leaving you with large chunky and annoying bits you had to chew instead. Yum.
Haagen Dazs is far better. Of course, there's no guarantee they won't beat a path down the same road too.
Naturally, despite the quality, I haven't seen it in a supermarket for years.
The greatest danger to supermarket ice cream isn't Ben and Jerry's novelty flavours, it's all the overengineered crap with unfeasibly low numbers of calories that isn't made with enough of the basic ingredients of cream, egg yolks and sugar.0 -
Quite obviously different political systems, but time does tend to throw a veil over these things.Casino_Royale said:
A better comparison is not to compare Britain to Nazi Germany at all.Foxy said:
Yes, perhaps a better comparison is with Aber Speers use of forced labour via the Todt organisation.Casino_Royale said:
Auschwitz was a death camp designed to exterminate a whole race - by design. Being sent there guaranteed death. It explains why there are so few Jews in continental Europe today.IshmaelZ said:
I can compare it. On the numbers, 3 is half of 6 but if you assume a minimum of two generations descended from the 3 million living under conditions amounting to an atrocity, the numbers at least even out. As for the quality of atrocity, is it obvious to you which was the more unfortunate, the passenger waiting for a train to Auschwitz or for a slave ship to New Orleans? It isn’t to me.Luckyguy1983 said:
Personally I find it bizarre. That 3 million were transported by Britain as slaves is deeply regrettable, but it is in no way comparable to a situation where 6 million Jews alone were put to death.IshmaelZ said:
Thank you!Mexicanpete said:
I am not sure you have read the earlier comments by Contrarian. If you have, language aside, I cannot understand why you find IshmaelZ's post disgusting.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a disgusting postIshmaelZ said:
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...contrarian said:
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.IshmaelZ said:
She got that off a poster on here, this morning:contrarian said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8662651/BBC-Songs-Praise-producer-compares-Rule-Britannia-Nazis-singing-gas-chambers.html
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Its not been a good day. It really hasn't
"Your overall position would be stronger if you admitted the existence of exceptions and edge cases. Consider, hypothetically, a patriotic German song written in the early 40s with a chorus which said that "True born Germans shall never ever ever be sent to death camps," and there's a valid historical claim that the song is really about, oooh, the fighting on the Russian front, not about Jews at all. Is that song OK? I know it's different, but what are the *relevant* differences?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.
Slavery was a system of enforced subjucation and hard labour for life but wasn't designed to exterminate nor guarantee death, which would have lost owners money. That explains why there are many of African descent in the Carribbean and North America today.
So whilst both were despicable, the Holocaust was uniquely evil as it was designed to exterminate a whole race.
This shouldn't even need pointing out.
The outrage about Mussolini in Ethiopia in the 1930s would have been unremarkeable for any European Empire just 50 years earlier. The East India Company in 18th Century Bengal was of the same order as Leopold in the Congo a century or so later.
Can't you see that "Land of hope and glory, mother of the free" rings rather hollow over much of the world, even as close to home as Connaught?
0 -
Of course Auschwitz was both an extermination camp and concentration camp; there was a fair chance of a (short) lifetime as a slave with extermination at the end. Not that different from the harsher plantations in the West Indies which were predicated on slaves being worked as hard as possible and being replaced on their deaths.noneoftheabove said:
People think differently. Its a very morbid hypothetical but there will be a reasonable proportion who prefer the quicker death of Auschwitz than a lifetime as a slave. I dont know which option I would choose, would probably depend on my age at the time and therefore the chance of escaping the slavery at some later point. Without actually agreeing with it, I think it is far from a ludicrous comparison, quite interesting I thought.Luckyguy1983 said:
Of course you can compare it, that is your right, but to do so only makes it look more ludicrous. Slavery was gravely unjust but it was not extermination. Your last question beggars belief. I doubt a single passenger on the Auschwitz train wouldn't have gladly swapped with those boarding a slave ship. And I doubt anyone on the slave ship would have willingly swapped with someone on their way to Auschwitz.IshmaelZ said:
I can compare it. On the numbers, 3 is half of 6 but if you assume a minimum of two generations descended from the 3 million living under conditions amounting to an atrocity, the numbers at least even out. As for the quality of atrocity, is it obvious to you which was the more unfortunate, the passenger waiting for a train to Auschwitz or for a slave ship to New Orleans? It isn’t to me.Luckyguy1983 said:
Personally I find it bizarre. That 3 million were transported by Britain as slaves is deeply regrettable, but it is in no way comparable to a situation where 6 million Jews alone were put to death.IshmaelZ said:
Thank you!Mexicanpete said:
I am not sure you have read the earlier comments by Contrarian. If you have, language aside, I cannot understand why you find IshmaelZ's post disgusting.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a disgusting postIshmaelZ said:
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...contrarian said:
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.IshmaelZ said:
She got that off a poster on here, this morning:contrarian said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8662651/BBC-Songs-Praise-producer-compares-Rule-Britannia-Nazis-singing-gas-chambers.html
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Its not been a good day. It really hasn't
"Your overall position would be stronger if you admitted the existence of exceptions and edge cases. Consider, hypothetically, a patriotic German song written in the early 40s with a chorus which said that "True born Germans shall never ever ever be sent to death camps," and there's a valid historical claim that the song is really about, oooh, the fighting on the Russian front, not about Jews at all. Is that song OK? I know it's different, but what are the *relevant* differences?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.0 -
You think Auschwitz was a quick death do you? OK. Most people are not clinically insane, therefore I feel being 'owned' but kept fed and in a fit condition to work, is going to be preferable to being transported to a glorified abbatoir, regardless of age, call me old fashioned.noneoftheabove said:
People think differently. Its a very morbid hypothetical but there will be a reasonable proportion who prefer the quicker death of Auschwitz than a lifetime as a slave. I dont know which option I would choose, would probably depend on my age at the time and therefore the chance of escaping the slavery at some later point. Without actually agreeing with it, I think it is far from a ludicrous comparison, quite interesting I thought.Luckyguy1983 said:
Of course you can compare it, that is your right, but to do so only makes it look more ludicrous. Slavery was gravely unjust but it was not extermination. Your last question beggars belief. I doubt a single passenger on the Auschwitz train wouldn't have gladly swapped with those boarding a slave ship. And I doubt anyone on the slave ship would have willingly swapped with someone on their way to Auschwitz.IshmaelZ said:
I can compare it. On the numbers, 3 is half of 6 but if you assume a minimum of two generations descended from the 3 million living under conditions amounting to an atrocity, the numbers at least even out. As for the quality of atrocity, is it obvious to you which was the more unfortunate, the passenger waiting for a train to Auschwitz or for a slave ship to New Orleans? It isn’t to me.Luckyguy1983 said:
Personally I find it bizarre. That 3 million were transported by Britain as slaves is deeply regrettable, but it is in no way comparable to a situation where 6 million Jews alone were put to death.IshmaelZ said:
Thank you!Mexicanpete said:
I am not sure you have read the earlier comments by Contrarian. If you have, language aside, I cannot understand why you find IshmaelZ's post disgusting.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a disgusting postIshmaelZ said:
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...contrarian said:
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.IshmaelZ said:
She got that off a poster on here, this morning:contrarian said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8662651/BBC-Songs-Praise-producer-compares-Rule-Britannia-Nazis-singing-gas-chambers.html
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Its not been a good day. It really hasn't
"Your overall position would be stronger if you admitted the existence of exceptions and edge cases. Consider, hypothetically, a patriotic German song written in the early 40s with a chorus which said that "True born Germans shall never ever ever be sent to death camps," and there's a valid historical claim that the song is really about, oooh, the fighting on the Russian front, not about Jews at all. Is that song OK? I know it's different, but what are the *relevant* differences?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.0 -
This is what I don't get. Critics of the British empire - I mean the sort of brain-dead critics who seem to have taken over the debate - have the most bizarrely twisted view of history.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Ironically, of course "Commonwealth" means republic!
BTW how many Indian viceroys were elected by the Indian public?
It starts with Enlightenment values - values which were created in Europe, and especially in France and in British-empire building Scotland , but also in England - and generalises those European, Enlightenment values to be universal. This is historically a very odd thing to do - no other society in the entire history of the world had these values before they became mainstream in Europe. But let's go with it, and judge the colonial period by the human-rights standards we would expect today.
Was the British Empire bad by those standards, compared with alternatives of the time? As you rightly say, no Viceroy of India was elected by Indians. So what? Who was? Was there some kind of Swedish-style social democracy, governed by the rule of law, and free of human rights abuses, and offering opportunities to all castes, amongst the Mughals and Maharajahs, and which was cruelly displayed by the British Empire?4 -
Err, no. The East India Company was by no conceivable standard comparable to Leopold in the Congo. Don't be daft.Foxy said:
Quite obviously different political systems, but time does tend to throw a veil over these things.
The outrage about Mussolini in Ethiopia in the 1930s would have been unremarkeable for any European Empire just 50 years earlier. The East India Company in 18th Century Bengal was of the same order as Leopold in the Congo a century or so later.
Can't you see that "Land of hope and glory, mother of the free" rings rather hollow over much of the world, even as close to home as Connaught?
1 -
It's not just in Sex Education, it's in a lot of the Netflix Originals shows. They have diverse characters, who are characters for reasons other than their diversity, and it's simply incidental and normal that they are homosexual, or black, or whatever. I can't think of where I've ever seen it before.Casino_Royale said:
Netflix did a very popular show - Sex Education - that was laced with the stuff that's usually the subject of wokeness but somehow that didn't piss anyone off.MaxPB said:
It's yet to be proven that young people will pay for wokeness, the most popular Netflix shows aren't really the woke ones and Netflix seems to have run out of road with their current strategy. The latest woke show seems to have generated a lot of controversy, but more in disgust than anything else.Casino_Royale said:
I think there's a constituency of thinking in the BBC that thinks to shed it's old audience and gain a younger (more diverse) one it has to actively signal against the values of the old one in order to get down with da kidz.MaxPB said:
Tbf, it's politics. The BBC handed him an opportunity, he took it. The stupidity lies with the BBC for pushing the woke agenda for a show that appeals to an older crowd that have no love for wokeism. It feels like the BBC has got Tory sleeper agents running it. The PM is in trouble over schools, virus and has got a popular chancellor breathing down his neck and the BBC chooses this exact moment to inflate a nothing row over some music that is ultimately meaningless.Stuartinromford said:
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.Philip_Thompson said:
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.Stuartinromford said:
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.Philip_Thompson said:
Is there going to be an audience?Richard_Tyndall said:When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
It's bats. They'll end up losing the older one (and the consensus for the licence fee) whilst gaining none of the younger one, who'll feel patronised and just laugh at them.
And everyone will switch to Netflix and Prime.
Why? They didn't push the Wokeness in your face as the central element of the "story", like you're being lectured. They just made a very very good show, with the diversity built around it in casting and to enhance the interest of storytelling.
The BBC would have done, just like they do with Doctor Who, and that's the problem with the BBC.3 -
It's actually a traditional English term for a political community founded for the common good.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Ironically, of course "Commonwealth" means republic!Casino_Royale said:
In fact, even the former isn't necessarily true since the British Empire tried (in almost all of its colonies) to move them to democratic models of self-governance prior to granting them independence.Casino_Royale said:
They're undemocratic, certainly. They're not necessarily racist.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Empires are racist and undemocratic.HYUFD said:
That includes half of Leave votersGallowgate said:You know who’s worse than those who try to shame all modern Britons for the Empire? Those who try to defend the Empire.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1238516597339426824?s=20
39% of Leave voters and 38% of Tory voters even still want an Empire
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1238517490952605697?s=20
The Romans were notoriously unfussy about who they sold and shipped into and out of slavery, sometimes including members of their own extended families.
The successor is the Commonwealth which celebrates those values.
BTW how many Indian viceroys were elected by the Indian public?
Viceroy's weren't elected (nor would they have been in any country) as they were representatives of the monarch. However, the gradual introduction of self-government in India was declared (legally) as early as the India Act 1919, and further built upon in the India Act 1935. Involvement in local government goes back earlier still. So to characterise all Empires as autocracies isn't necessarily true.
The issue was that it didn't go far and quickly enough in India. Self governing political institutions (as well as the civic institutions like universities, courts and libraries that were constructed) should have been built in India in the 1860-1880s (as they were for Australia, Canada and New Zealand) so that India too could have become a fully self-governing dominion under the 1931 statue of Westminster.
Had that been done India would have been a full and willing partner in WW2, we'd probably have avoided a nasty partition and I expect it'd still be a Commonwealth realm today.1 -
There's an unfeasible amount of utter wankery that's being spouted here just to try and justify binning a song.Theuniondivvie said:
Of course Auschwitz was both an extermination camp and concentration camp; there was a fair chance of a (short) lifetime as a slave with extermination at the end. Not that different from the harsher plantations in the West Indies which were predicated on slaves being worked as hard as possible and being replaced on their deaths.noneoftheabove said:
People think differently. Its a very morbid hypothetical but there will be a reasonable proportion who prefer the quicker death of Auschwitz than a lifetime as a slave. I dont know which option I would choose, would probably depend on my age at the time and therefore the chance of escaping the slavery at some later point. Without actually agreeing with it, I think it is far from a ludicrous comparison, quite interesting I thought.Luckyguy1983 said:
Of course you can compare it, that is your right, but to do so only makes it look more ludicrous. Slavery was gravely unjust but it was not extermination. Your last question beggars belief. I doubt a single passenger on the Auschwitz train wouldn't have gladly swapped with those boarding a slave ship. And I doubt anyone on the slave ship would have willingly swapped with someone on their way to Auschwitz.IshmaelZ said:
I can compare it. On the numbers, 3 is half of 6 but if you assume a minimum of two generations descended from the 3 million living under conditions amounting to an atrocity, the numbers at least even out. As for the quality of atrocity, is it obvious to you which was the more unfortunate, the passenger waiting for a train to Auschwitz or for a slave ship to New Orleans? It isn’t to me.Luckyguy1983 said:
Personally I find it bizarre. That 3 million were transported by Britain as slaves is deeply regrettable, but it is in no way comparable to a situation where 6 million Jews alone were put to death.IshmaelZ said:
Thank you!Mexicanpete said:
I am not sure you have read the earlier comments by Contrarian. If you have, language aside, I cannot understand why you find IshmaelZ's post disgusting.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a disgusting postIshmaelZ said:
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...contrarian said:
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.IshmaelZ said:
She got that off a poster on here, this morning:contrarian said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8662651/BBC-Songs-Praise-producer-compares-Rule-Britannia-Nazis-singing-gas-chambers.html
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Its not been a good day. It really hasn't
"Your overall position would be stronger if you admitted the existence of exceptions and edge cases. Consider, hypothetically, a patriotic German song written in the early 40s with a chorus which said that "True born Germans shall never ever ever be sent to death camps," and there's a valid historical claim that the song is really about, oooh, the fighting on the Russian front, not about Jews at all. Is that song OK? I know it's different, but what are the *relevant* differences?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.3 -
Without the British Empire existing as it did at the time it's likely we'd have far less democracy and freedom in the world today, which would likely be a highly autocratic one - at best.Richard_Nabavi said:
This is what I don't get. Critics of the British empire - I mean the sort of brain-dead critics who seem to have taken over the debate - have the most bizarrely twisted view of history.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Ironically, of course "Commonwealth" means republic!
BTW how many Indian viceroys were elected by the Indian public?
It starts with Enlightenment values - values which were created in Europe, and especially in France and in British-empire building Scotland , but also in England - and generalises those European, Enlightenment values to be universal. This is historically a very odd thing to do - no other society in the entire history of the world had these values before they became mainstream in Europe. But let's go with it, and judge the colonial period by the human-rights standards we would expect today.
Was the British Empire bad by those standards, compared with alternatives of the time? As you rightly say, no Viceroy of India was elected by Indians. So what? Who was? Was there some kind of Swedish-style social democracy, governed by the rule of law, and free of human rights abuses, and offering opportunities to all castes, amongst the Mughals and Maharajahs, and which was cruelly displayed by the British Empire?
That's not to apologise for its many crimes but, in assessing its legacy in the round, it must also be part of the scorecard.3 -
Nearly a decade ago, a poll said most Jamaicans still wanted to be ruled by Britain:Sunil_Prasannan said:
Empires are racist and undemocratic.HYUFD said:
That includes half of Leave votersGallowgate said:You know who’s worse than those who try to shame all modern Britons for the Empire? Those who try to defend the Empire.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1238516597339426824?s=20
39% of Leave voters and 38% of Tory voters even still want an Empire
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1238517490952605697?s=20
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-13952592
Playing Devil's Advocate. Would have not been better for a number of countries (e.g. Sierra Leone) if they had stayed British than become independent?0 -
Agreed. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't remember the East India Company cutting off the hands of labourers if they failed to meet their quotas.Richard_Nabavi said:
Err, no. The East India Company was by no conceivable standard comparable to Leopold in the Congo. Don't be daft.Foxy said:
Quite obviously different political systems, but time does tend to throw a veil over these things.
The outrage about Mussolini in Ethiopia in the 1930s would have been unremarkeable for any European Empire just 50 years earlier. The East India Company in 18th Century Bengal was of the same order as Leopold in the Congo a century or so later.
Can't you see that "Land of hope and glory, mother of the free" rings rather hollow over much of the world, even as close to home as Connaught?0 -
You think Auschwitz a slower death than slavery do you?Luckyguy1983 said:
You think Auschwitz was a quick death do you? OK. Most people are not clinically insane, therefore I feel being 'owned' but kept fed and in a fit condition to work, is going to be preferable to being transported to a glorified abbatoir, regardless of age, call me old fashioned.noneoftheabove said:
People think differently. Its a very morbid hypothetical but there will be a reasonable proportion who prefer the quicker death of Auschwitz than a lifetime as a slave. I dont know which option I would choose, would probably depend on my age at the time and therefore the chance of escaping the slavery at some later point. Without actually agreeing with it, I think it is far from a ludicrous comparison, quite interesting I thought.Luckyguy1983 said:
Of course you can compare it, that is your right, but to do so only makes it look more ludicrous. Slavery was gravely unjust but it was not extermination. Your last question beggars belief. I doubt a single passenger on the Auschwitz train wouldn't have gladly swapped with those boarding a slave ship. And I doubt anyone on the slave ship would have willingly swapped with someone on their way to Auschwitz.IshmaelZ said:
I can compare it. On the numbers, 3 is half of 6 but if you assume a minimum of two generations descended from the 3 million living under conditions amounting to an atrocity, the numbers at least even out. As for the quality of atrocity, is it obvious to you which was the more unfortunate, the passenger waiting for a train to Auschwitz or for a slave ship to New Orleans? It isn’t to me.Luckyguy1983 said:
Personally I find it bizarre. That 3 million were transported by Britain as slaves is deeply regrettable, but it is in no way comparable to a situation where 6 million Jews alone were put to death.IshmaelZ said:
Thank you!Mexicanpete said:
I am not sure you have read the earlier comments by Contrarian. If you have, language aside, I cannot understand why you find IshmaelZ's post disgusting.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a disgusting postIshmaelZ said:
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...contrarian said:
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.IshmaelZ said:
She got that off a poster on here, this morning:contrarian said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8662651/BBC-Songs-Praise-producer-compares-Rule-Britannia-Nazis-singing-gas-chambers.html
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Its not been a good day. It really hasn't
"Your overall position would be stronger if you admitted the existence of exceptions and edge cases. Consider, hypothetically, a patriotic German song written in the early 40s with a chorus which said that "True born Germans shall never ever ever be sent to death camps," and there's a valid historical claim that the song is really about, oooh, the fighting on the Russian front, not about Jews at all. Is that song OK? I know it's different, but what are the *relevant* differences?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.
Quicker and quick mean different things, there is no point discussing a delicate subject if you are going to deliberately misinterpret.0 -
No it wasn't.Foxy said:
Quite obviously different political systems, but time does tend to throw a veil over these things.Casino_Royale said:
A better comparison is not to compare Britain to Nazi Germany at all.Foxy said:
Yes, perhaps a better comparison is with Aber Speers use of forced labour via the Todt organisation.Casino_Royale said:
Auschwitz was a death camp designed to exterminate a whole race - by design. Being sent there guaranteed death. It explains why there are so few Jews in continental Europe today.IshmaelZ said:
I can compare it. On the numbers, 3 is half of 6 but if you assume a minimum of two generations descended from the 3 million living under conditions amounting to an atrocity, the numbers at least even out. As for the quality of atrocity, is it obvious to you which was the more unfortunate, the passenger waiting for a train to Auschwitz or for a slave ship to New Orleans? It isn’t to me.Luckyguy1983 said:
Personally I find it bizarre. That 3 million were transported by Britain as slaves is deeply regrettable, but it is in no way comparable to a situation where 6 million Jews alone were put to death.IshmaelZ said:
Thank you!Mexicanpete said:
I am not sure you have read the earlier comments by Contrarian. If you have, language aside, I cannot understand why you find IshmaelZ's post disgusting.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a disgusting postIshmaelZ said:
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...contrarian said:
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.IshmaelZ said:
She got that off a poster on here, this morning:contrarian said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8662651/BBC-Songs-Praise-producer-compares-Rule-Britannia-Nazis-singing-gas-chambers.html
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Its not been a good day. It really hasn't
"Your overall position would be stronger if you admitted the existence of exceptions and edge cases. Consider, hypothetically, a patriotic German song written in the early 40s with a chorus which said that "True born Germans shall never ever ever be sent to death camps," and there's a valid historical claim that the song is really about, oooh, the fighting on the Russian front, not about Jews at all. Is that song OK? I know it's different, but what are the *relevant* differences?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.
Slavery was a system of enforced subjucation and hard labour for life but wasn't designed to exterminate nor guarantee death, which would have lost owners money. That explains why there are many of African descent in the Carribbean and North America today.
So whilst both were despicable, the Holocaust was uniquely evil as it was designed to exterminate a whole race.
This shouldn't even need pointing out.
The outrage about Mussolini in Ethiopia in the 1930s would have been unremarkeable for any European Empire just 50 years earlier. The East India Company in 18th Century Bengal was of the same order as Leopold in the Congo a century or so later.
You're drawing a false equivalence there which you think strengthens your point but actually serves to undermine it by virtue of its absurdity.0 -
I didn't mention a song, only factual observations.Luckyguy1983 said:
There's an unfeasible amount of utter wankery that's being spouted here just to try and justify binning a song.Theuniondivvie said:
Of course Auschwitz was both an extermination camp and concentration camp; there was a fair chance of a (short) lifetime as a slave with extermination at the end. Not that different from the harsher plantations in the West Indies which were predicated on slaves being worked as hard as possible and being replaced on their deaths.noneoftheabove said:
People think differently. Its a very morbid hypothetical but there will be a reasonable proportion who prefer the quicker death of Auschwitz than a lifetime as a slave. I dont know which option I would choose, would probably depend on my age at the time and therefore the chance of escaping the slavery at some later point. Without actually agreeing with it, I think it is far from a ludicrous comparison, quite interesting I thought.Luckyguy1983 said:
Of course you can compare it, that is your right, but to do so only makes it look more ludicrous. Slavery was gravely unjust but it was not extermination. Your last question beggars belief. I doubt a single passenger on the Auschwitz train wouldn't have gladly swapped with those boarding a slave ship. And I doubt anyone on the slave ship would have willingly swapped with someone on their way to Auschwitz.IshmaelZ said:
I can compare it. On the numbers, 3 is half of 6 but if you assume a minimum of two generations descended from the 3 million living under conditions amounting to an atrocity, the numbers at least even out. As for the quality of atrocity, is it obvious to you which was the more unfortunate, the passenger waiting for a train to Auschwitz or for a slave ship to New Orleans? It isn’t to me.Luckyguy1983 said:
Personally I find it bizarre. That 3 million were transported by Britain as slaves is deeply regrettable, but it is in no way comparable to a situation where 6 million Jews alone were put to death.IshmaelZ said:
Thank you!Mexicanpete said:
I am not sure you have read the earlier comments by Contrarian. If you have, language aside, I cannot understand why you find IshmaelZ's post disgusting.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a disgusting postIshmaelZ said:
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...contrarian said:
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.IshmaelZ said:
She got that off a poster on here, this morning:contrarian said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8662651/BBC-Songs-Praise-producer-compares-Rule-Britannia-Nazis-singing-gas-chambers.html
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Its not been a good day. It really hasn't
"Your overall position would be stronger if you admitted the existence of exceptions and edge cases. Consider, hypothetically, a patriotic German song written in the early 40s with a chorus which said that "True born Germans shall never ever ever be sent to death camps," and there's a valid historical claim that the song is really about, oooh, the fighting on the Russian front, not about Jews at all. Is that song OK? I know it's different, but what are the *relevant* differences?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.0 -
I think that would have been difficult Casino. India was different from the likes of Australia in two ways (1) its people didn't have ties to the home country as the Dominions did and (2) there were a number of Princely rulers which complicated matters.Casino_Royale said:
It's actually a traditional English term for a political community founded for the common good.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Ironically, of course "Commonwealth" means republic!Casino_Royale said:
In fact, even the former isn't necessarily true since the British Empire tried (in almost all of its colonies) to move them to democratic models of self-governance prior to granting them independence.Casino_Royale said:
They're undemocratic, certainly. They're not necessarily racist.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Empires are racist and undemocratic.HYUFD said:
That includes half of Leave votersGallowgate said:You know who’s worse than those who try to shame all modern Britons for the Empire? Those who try to defend the Empire.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1238516597339426824?s=20
39% of Leave voters and 38% of Tory voters even still want an Empire
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1238517490952605697?s=20
The Romans were notoriously unfussy about who they sold and shipped into and out of slavery, sometimes including members of their own extended families.
The successor is the Commonwealth which celebrates those values.
BTW how many Indian viceroys were elected by the Indian public?
Viceroy's weren't elected (nor would they have been in any country) as they were representatives of the monarch. However, the gradual introduction of self-government in India was declared (legally) as early as the India Act 1919, and further built upon in the India Act 1935. Involvement in local government goes back earlier still. So to characterise all Empires as autocracies isn't necessarily true.
The issue was that it didn't go far and quickly enough in India. Self governing political institutions (as well as the civic institutions like universities, courts and libraries that were constructed) should have been built in India in the 1860-1880s (as they were for Australia, Canada and New Zealand) so that India too could have become a fully self-governing dominion under the 1931 statue of Westminster.
Had that been done India would have been a full and willing partner in WW2, we'd probably have avoided a nasty partition and I expect it'd still be a Commonwealth realm today.
PS sorry to be a pedant but India is still a member of the Commonwealth.0 -
It's not a fact. Auschwitz was designed to slaughter as many Jews as quickly and efficiently as possible to achieve the goal of racial elimination.Theuniondivvie said:
I didn't mention a song, only factual observations.Luckyguy1983 said:
There's an unfeasible amount of utter wankery that's being spouted here just to try and justify binning a song.Theuniondivvie said:
Of course Auschwitz was both an extermination camp and concentration camp; there was a fair chance of a (short) lifetime as a slave with extermination at the end. Not that different from the harsher plantations in the West Indies which were predicated on slaves being worked as hard as possible and being replaced on their deaths.noneoftheabove said:
People think differently. Its a very morbid hypothetical but there will be a reasonable proportion who prefer the quicker death of Auschwitz than a lifetime as a slave. I dont know which option I would choose, would probably depend on my age at the time and therefore the chance of escaping the slavery at some later point. Without actually agreeing with it, I think it is far from a ludicrous comparison, quite interesting I thought.Luckyguy1983 said:
Of course you can compare it, that is your right, but to do so only makes it look more ludicrous. Slavery was gravely unjust but it was not extermination. Your last question beggars belief. I doubt a single passenger on the Auschwitz train wouldn't have gladly swapped with those boarding a slave ship. And I doubt anyone on the slave ship would have willingly swapped with someone on their way to Auschwitz.IshmaelZ said:
I can compare it. On the numbers, 3 is half of 6 but if you assume a minimum of two generations descended from the 3 million living under conditions amounting to an atrocity, the numbers at least even out. As for the quality of atrocity, is it obvious to you which was the more unfortunate, the passenger waiting for a train to Auschwitz or for a slave ship to New Orleans? It isn’t to me.Luckyguy1983 said:
Personally I find it bizarre. That 3 million were transported by Britain as slaves is deeply regrettable, but it is in no way comparable to a situation where 6 million Jews alone were put to death.IshmaelZ said:
Thank you!Mexicanpete said:
I am not sure you have read the earlier comments by Contrarian. If you have, language aside, I cannot understand why you find IshmaelZ's post disgusting.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a disgusting postIshmaelZ said:
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...contrarian said:
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.IshmaelZ said:
She got that off a poster on here, this morning:contrarian said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8662651/BBC-Songs-Praise-producer-compares-Rule-Britannia-Nazis-singing-gas-chambers.html
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Its not been a good day. It really hasn't
"Your overall position would be stronger if you admitted the existence of exceptions and edge cases. Consider, hypothetically, a patriotic German song written in the early 40s with a chorus which said that "True born Germans shall never ever ever be sent to death camps," and there's a valid historical claim that the song is really about, oooh, the fighting on the Russian front, not about Jews at all. Is that song OK? I know it's different, but what are the *relevant* differences?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.
Slavery was not.
This argument really hinges on the fact that because both are terrible they're basically as bad each other.
They're not.0
This discussion has been closed.