quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Of course, you conveniently forgot about William the Conqueror's invasion, and the conquest of Wales by Edward I, who was a Norman king.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phoenixpower

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: egern
No Brit I have talked to is very proud of their colonial past.

seems to me this isnt about tha brits celebrating the empire but getting pissed when reminded of tha past.

seems tha famous british restraint has also gone tha way of the empire.

lol, maybe that's why I heard during my 7 years in the UK quite often "but your lot started the war!!!" (not a topic I ever started, but it came often out of nowhere)...

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Of course, you conveniently forgot about William the Conqueror's invasion, and the conquest of Wales by Edward I, who was a Norman king.

far as i know tha normans assimilated into engerland after a century r two & tha state basically turned to being english again atta some point with the plantagents

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

The 10-15 million deaths caused by your English slave transportation wasn't enough of a world class atrocity to please you? It certainly topped the claim of 7 million Jews killed by the Germans or Pol Pots efforts as I claimed earlier. Never mind the hideous death toll on English plantations across the Americas.

Keep on defending England's past, you undo the work of any ten English who wish to move forward.

10 - 15 million........ Seems to me you pluck figures from thin air.

And if you ever paid attention, You would see I have already said the slave trade was abhorent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

The 10-15 million deaths caused by your English slave transportation wasn't enough of a world class atrocity to please you? It certainly topped the claim of 7 million Jews killed by the Germans or Pol Pots efforts as I claimed earlier. Never mind the hideous death toll on English plantations across the Americas.

Keep on defending England's past, you undo the work of any ten English who wish to move forward.

10 - 15 million........ Seems to me you pluck figures from thin air.

And if you ever paid attention, You would see I have already said the slave trade was abhorent.

If you want we can use the top end of the range as your English atrocity score. That is of course for a death toll of 30-35 million dead slaves out of a maximum death count of over 60 million for all the players.. I would not want you to feel shorted, or that any cheated England on your due credits.

However most the academics think this is way past reality.

quote:

Historians have estimated that tens of thousands of Native Americans were enslaved. It is estimated that Carolina traders operating out of Charles Town shipped an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 Native American captives between 1670 and 1715 in a profitable slave trade with the Caribbean, Spanish Hispaniola, and Northern colonies. Because it was more profitable to have Native American slaves, whites in the Northern colonies sometimes preferred Native American slaves, especially Native women and children, to Africans. Prior to 1720, when it ended the Native American slave trade, Carolina exported as many or more Native American slaves than it imported Africans. The usual exchange rate of captive Native Americans for enslaved Africans during this time period was two or three Native Americans to one African. In the Southwest, Spanish colonists and Native Americans sold or traded slaves at many of the trade fairs along the Rio Grande.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Now, as for slaves for menial labor, abhorrent practice. The slave trade was a black mark on Anglo-European history.

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

If you want we can use the top end of the range as your English atrocity score. That is of course for a death toll of 30-35 million dead slaves out of a maximum death count of over 60 million for all the players.. I would not want you to feel shorted, or that any cheated England on your due credits.

However most the academics think this is way past reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Now, as for slaves for menial labor, abhorrent practice. The slave trade was a black mark on Anglo-European history.

You do know slavery was rife in the US before the Europeans got there. In both North and South America.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Of course, you conveniently forgot about William the Conqueror's invasion, and the conquest of Wales by Edward I, who was a Norman king.

far as i know tha normans assimilated into engerland after a century r two & tha state basically turned to being english again atta some point with the plantagents

But the British or English aren't true Britains. With the exception of those who are primarily of Celtic ancestry, the rest are an assimilation genetic deposits consisting of Normans, Britons, Angles, Saxons, Norse, and every other culture or race that invaded Britannia after the Romans left.

They have 1630 years of racial cross breeding compare to the US of having only about 413 years of crossbreeding, so that kind of makes us less prone to cultural insanity than the British... I mean think of it, only an insane culture could come up with Toad in the Hole, Steak and Kidney Pudding, Black Pudding, the spice girls, just to name a few off the top of my head.

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Now, as for slaves for menial labor, abhorrent practice. The slave trade was a black mark on Anglo-European history.

You do know slavery was rife in the US before the Europeans got there. In both North and South America.

Actually not, at least in Central or South America -

The Carribs had slaves, and so did some groups in Brasil. Otherwise not, even the Aztecs did not have slavery, brutal as they were in other respects, the Maya and the Inca certainly did not.

But aren't you a bit confused as to which continents the "US" is located on?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

First the kingdom of England came into existence in 927AD, after a gathering of kings (note the plural) at Edmont Bridge. This meeting effectively united all the kingdoms on the Island under one rule.

Of course, you conveniently forgot about William the Conqueror's invasion, and the conquest of Wales by Edward I, who was a Norman king.

England's move toward empire building could be traced to the Plantagenet Kings during the Hundred Years war, but they only wanted France, something to do with various royal marriages between the two royal families, but that is more of a line of succession disagreement than an actual attempt at empire building.

Now before you use the phrase, "read a book" I suggest you do some fucking research. My personal library is mostly history texts covering the period from Ancient Greece to the modern era, and they are the sources I used for all my college papers and master's degree work.

And even using the date you plucked out of the air, it still does not add up to a thousand years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Now, as for slaves for menial labor, abhorrent practice. The slave trade was a black mark on Anglo-European history.

You do know slavery was rife in the US before the Europeans got there. In both North and South America.

Actually not, at least in Central or South America -

The Carribs had slaves, and so did some groups in Brasil. Otherwise not, even the Aztecs did not have slavery, brutal as they were in other respects, the Maya and the Inca certainly did not.

But aren't you a bit confused as to which continents the "US" is located on?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Now, as for slaves for menial labor, abhorrent practice. The slave trade was a black mark on Anglo-European history.

You do know slavery was rife in the US before the Europeans got there. In both North and South America.

Actually not, at least in Central or South America -

The Carribs had slaves, and so did some groups in Brasil. Otherwise not, even the Aztecs did not have slavery, brutal as they were in other respects, the Maya and the Inca certainly did not.

But aren't you a bit confused as to which continents the "US" is located on?

I meant slavery was rife in both North and south America before Europeans got there, but you knew that anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

The real news is that Cameron appears to be returning to London with little to show after announcing any contrition the English might feel for crimes committed in India would not extend to the great diamond's return.

An Indian view of relations with the English, and Cameron's visit -

A reality check for David Cameron's India quest - Bhaskar Menon explains why for India it cannot be business as usual with the British.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

The real news is that Cameron appears to be returning to London with little to show after announcing any contrition the English might feel for crimes committed in India would not extend to the great diamond's return.

An Indian view of relations with the English, and Cameron's visit -

A reality check for David Cameron's India quest - Bhaskar Menon explains why for India it cannot be business as usual with the British.

Did you actually read this drivel before you posted it. I only just decided to give it a go, since I guessed the content.

You do know the author is the same record company owner, who wanted to profit from the worlds first rock concert to raise money for victims of disasters (Bangladesh 1971)

quote:

British Prime Minister David Cameron began his three-day visit to India by invoking the "huge ties" between the two countries of "history, language, culture and business."

One wonders which particular aspect of the shared history of the two nations he found supportive of his current quest for broadened economic linkages.

Could it be what the East India Company did after bribing its way to control of Bengal, the richest province of Mughal India? Within a decade of the so-called "Battle of Plassey" (Pilashi) in 1757, Bengal lay in ruins. The destruction of its economy was so severe a third of the population, some five million people, died of starvation in the first of the great "man-made famines". British rule spread across India. A conservative estimate of the overall toll of such famines is 100 million.

quote:

Or perhaps Cameron found inspiring the theft of the fabled Kohinoor diamond after the British defeated the Sikhs almost a century later. Maharaja Ranjit Singh's 11-year old grandson went with the diamond to Britain where it became part of the "crown jewels" and he was comprehensively debauched with drugs and sex to disable his potential as a leader.

Or maybe the prime minister is enthralled by the post-1857 "pacification" that involved the indiscriminate slaughter of some 10 million civilians, men, women and children.

Cameron's historic admission that the 1919 Jallianwalla Bagh massacre was "deeply shameful" does not begin to address the long line of British atrocities in India, most of which remain officially unacknowledged. They are systematically ignored or downplayed even in works of history by British scholars supposedly engaged in the pursuit of truth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Now look here chaps, I hate to be the one to tell you but all of you dont have a fucking clue. Nothing new there but I digress.

The first King as Athelstan, Grandson of the Saxon King Arthur. Athelstan unified all the English Kings at the Battle of Brunanburh. But getting back to the early Celts, they were native to here since the Iron Age and called Brythonic. The Romans called them Britons. the Brythonic language was the first on all these Isles and whats now Gaelic wasnt the original Gaelic. Just as whats now English isnt the same as Old English.

These things evolve through history, but not having much of it, I can understand the confussion across the pond.

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN


Do you have another Indian who you think better represents Indian views of the "special relationship" your man Cameron claims India has with England?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN


Do you have another Indian who you think better represents Indian views of the "special relationship" your man Cameron claims India has with England?

Can't you see that the opinions of worthy oriental gentlemen on how it feels to be a worthy oriental gentleman (or 'former colonial'), can't be taken seriously unless approved by former colonial masters?
Or at least unless the worthy oriental gentleman's opinion is expressed by a good worthy oriental gentlemen?

It simply isn't done... next thing you know they will be wanting to move needlessly about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
But the British or English aren't true Britains. With the exception of those who are primarily of Celtic ancestry, the rest are an assimilation genetic deposits consisting of Normans, Britons, Angles, Saxons, Norse, and every other culture or race that invaded Britannia after the Romans left.

They have 1630 years of racial cross breeding compare to the US of having only about 413 years of crossbreeding, so that kind of makes us less prone to cultural insanity than the British... I mean think of it, only an insane culture could come up with Toad in the Hole, Steak and Kidney Pudding, Black Pudding, the spice girls, just to name a few off the top of my head.