Or more realistically a shed load of money going the other direction. As we seem to have all decided residency prevails.
Falklands
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Or more realistically a shed load of money going the other direction. As we seem to have all decided residency prevails.
This is interesting, because British colonialism (and Ireland was never viewed to be a colony), was, especially after the loss of New England, quite stark in its difference to how say other powers such as Spain and France went about it. Britain never had a large standing army, and the two main purposes of the Royal Navy were to A) Defend the British Isles, and B) Provide support for the empire builders. Britain basically gave charters to corporate bodies to exploit the world for financial gain. The Royal Navy was there to provide protection for that trade from both people such as pirates, other colonial powers, and at times quite vicious locals that were a bit miffed about it all. To do that, it required strategic ports such as the Falklands, Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus, Ascencion, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Africa, etc.
It seems to have done so for the Celts in Ireland!
Our aid is much better spent morally and practically on the developing world than on the USA, Canada and Australia.
Stop being obsessive and making comparisons with Ireland, the scenarios are nothing alike. My first sentence means the people there have lived there for a long time, they're not 'settlers', they're inhabitants. By you're logic the US should be given back to the natives because 'colonialism wasn't morally right'.
Well Northern Ireland was created during the colonial era moses, and I never said that there were not still problems to be dealt with. Ireland is a completely different matter anyway.
I have never argued oppositely.
Ireland was never a colony, it was incorporated into the Union. Was it oppressive? Yes, but that's a different matter. Were English people oppressed, yes to that question also. All of the people on the British Isles were oppressed and abused by the ruling classes of the time.
I have already said the people on the islands are British, just that calling them 'the people' needed qualification. They were settlers.
And in theory, which I am talking about, in America, yes it should or at least they should be compensated better than they are. The powers that be were pretty quick to redress the sufferings of the Jewish people, but notably with someone elses lands. So the idea of recompense is not just crazy moses being a nationalist.
It's amazing what a little bit of water around a piece of land does to make people feel separate and unique.
It's not, you said that if the people want self determination they should get it. The last 300 years on this island has been about that only. And when we almost got it there was a border put around the settlers and the country has been ravaged since.
We can only talk in theory, and your theory is selective.
My point is, do you call people in the US Americans or British settlers? You're just trivialising the issue.
The water wasn't really what united us, it was getting killed and oppressed. Ironically.
Us Welsh were oppressed too. There's something in the water.
I think the problem with New England is that it had more settlers from other parts of Europe than Britain. New York was even at one time called New Amsterdam, so. You'd have to call them European settlers.
This is not maths. They are americans, but IMO there is a huge debt to the displaced and abused natives and more should be done to preserve what's left of thier culture. If you see that as trivial, it's best we stop talking.
They used to chuck you down mines at the age of six didn't they, and make you work your balls off for 16 hours, only to give you a bit of stale bread, mouldy cheese, and some warm donkey piss for sustenance. 6 hours sleep, and back down you went.
Off topic, but without the religious issue would have been no bother. We had no real issue with rule from London as we had no real identity. When it became an issue of religion it all kicked off. Before that it was mainly educated Protestants that spoke of self government.
Then they took our mines away, the bastards.
Finally someone who is willing to admit that the Northern Ireland conflict is, at heart, a religious one. So many people shy away from that.
They did that on their own though in the main, there was no colonialism through foreign political powers involved in that. See what happens when you let folks have their independence, they go on a rampage.
What's trivial is you bringing all this into a simple debate on whether we should continue controlling the Falkland Islands.
Colonialism and rule by those who are not your peers or countrymen is in reality the same thing?
Indeed, the Native Americans were mostly slaughtered in an independent and expanding 'America'.
If Northern Ireland had not been created, the whole island would have ended up a total bloodbath and would now have a human population similar to that of the Falkland Islands and half a million sheep.
I never said that. So unless you are going to read my posts stop taking issue with them
No, my theory involves the present day, not what happened a century ago.
In a way, the pan national freedom movement was built on religious grounds and not the more high falution ideals of the United Irishmen, but was fought along the battle lines of self determination and conversely the sectarian issues in the north although fought along religious lines have some of their roots in economic issues as well as the balance of power in Westminister.
So I'm not as onside with that as you might think.
Well, it happened to the British Isles - Neolithic Peoples <- Celts <- Romans <- (fecked off leaving the Celts) <- Saxons <- Normans. And all of that lot in-fought amongst themselves also. The difference today is that this type of behaviour is universally accepted to not be acceptable. 4000 or 1000 years ago it was quite the norm.
Fair enough., it just seems a little convenient and a little too late.
Aye, and like I said to Mike the reason British rule took hold here was we had no self identity and the English that came first were just another tribe. The issue of occuptaion didn't come for centuries. The idea of Ireland was born on continental Europe and then the struggle actually began, but only for the educated, it didn't become a popular movement until someone said the King hated the Pope or what not. The history of thought and ideas is important as to deciding right and wrong is all I've trying to say. And I know theory can't always be applied, and I only entered this conversation as someone was called patethic for putting forth the idea that the issue wasn't that clear.
It's never too late. And anyway, in a few thousand years, people will dismiss many of these events as they now do the Celtic treatment of the neolithics. Shit under the bridge.
Over history Britain has lost far more of its own population trying to defend other countries against military aggression than it has killed other peoples by being militarily aggressive. Have a think about that!
Only when it was in its best interests to do so though, tbf.
You mean over the balance of power? Well, of course, it still doesn't change the fact. Why were we the first major nation to abolish slavery? That pissed a lot off.
I am perplexed; what are you trying to insinuate?
That over history the appliance of British military force has been done far less in terms of generating wealth for itself than otherwise. In the last major European and World conflict, instead of bankrupting itself, it could simply have sat back and said "feck you"!
I wouldn't be to sure.
So is it your contention that Britain was acting out of altruism and moral fervor in the 20th century or would you argue it predates this period?
I would find it preposterous if you contended that the culture of savagery since the seventeenth century when Britain transformed from a relative backwater to a military-armed state set about conquest was noble humanitarianism.
Not to mention a separate language, culture and genetic origin.
And the Scots?