Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
But, it wasn't 'British greed for power'.
The empire was all about merchants and commerce. The government latched onto British commerce abroad long after the 'so-called British Empire' was in place.
Some people might equate greed for money as being close to the same thing as greed for power. Those who would cross the line and actually kill to satisfy their greed would probably be in both categories.
quote:
It's a strange thing how Britain seems to get blamed for these things.
Yet, not perfect by any means, and certainly not without fault; but our record stood up against others in that period. Including Germany, Belgium, France and the United States. By comparison, we were pretty benevolent.
Well, we're all "dirty" to some extent. I don't know if it's a productive exercise to argue over "who's worse," although it does seem to happen just the same.
quote:
It certainly can be 'denied'.
What happens with these things is that some of you are anti-British and focus on Britain. Perhaps when you get round to looking at other countries, including your own, of the day you may get a surprise.
Just like Europeans, mainly continental, see nothing but greed, power and corruption in the United States; you see something similar in Britain.
These are good points, although one thing that may not be clear to those inside the United Kingdom is that, historically, a lot of other countries actually looked up to England and had a great deal of admiration for the British Empire. The times when any trouble popped up was when those in other countries felt they weren't getting their piece of the action. Morally, it didn't make any country "better" or "worse" than other countries, but I would characterize it more as rival mafia families vying for power however they can. The judgmental aspects and moral relativism mainly exist for propaganda purposes.
Of course the United States came about as an "outgrowth" of Britain, even though we eventually became a separate country. Perhaps it's a matter of convenience for the child to blame the parent for his problems.
quote:
The equivalent would be as follows:
It took you centuries to come to some sort of equilibrium with people from another race living in your country.
It took us about 30 years. England was an all white country pretty much until the 1950s but we didn't have anything like the problems you had, and it took us a very short time to live peacefully with one another.
What I'm saying is that I could use a microcosm of US history and come to the conclusion that 'Americans are sick mutherfuckers', but clearly that would be completely pointless.
The British Empire was about far more than "greed for power" or whatever term/words you wish to use.
One could make a case for either.
On the other hand, if we consider that, at least from 1607-1776, America and England were the same country, it might put a different perspective on things. There were also other sections of the British Empire where different races were living in the same country for much longer than the 1950s. I don't think either country has reached any true "equilibrium" yet, although one might suggest that it's better than it once was. And yes, both America and Britain have had more than a few "sick motherfuckers." Again, I don't think it makes either of us "better" or "worse" than the other, but the truth of the matter is still there for all to see.
As far as the relationship between the US and Britain, that has gone through different stages, although in the early years, America was not developed or strong enough to be a major player yet, so we confined our foreign policy to our own immediate vicinity, although being aggressively expansionist on our own continent. After the War of 1812, neither of us were interested in tangling with each other, and further territorial issues with British Canada were settled peacefully from then on (even despite the cries of 54-40 or fight later on). America turned its attention south and west, while Britain concentrated on other areas of the world (such as India and Africa). By the end of the 19th century, America was still neutral and somewhat isolationist in terms of staying out of foreign entanglements, but we seemed to be pretty much okay with the world order as it stood, with Britain and France holding most of the hegemony and primacy over the world. Sure, we had a spat with Spain and grabbed a few territories, but we were always very careful to avoid making any designs on anything held by Britain or France.
The point is, America was never any true rival or "enemy" of that hegemony, since we had come to accept it and even began to cooperate with it. We were invested in it and making money too. However, there were other powers which Britain and France did find threatening, such as Germany. That's when things started to get more complicated and forced America into making choices which might be looked at as regrettable from hindsight. We had to side with Britain; under the circumstances, there was no other viable option for us. But once that alliance took hold, we were locked in, and some Americans have always tended to bristle at the idea. It's not because they're anti-British, but maybe because they're pro-British and would still support Britain but still not happy about the reasons why that support is necessary at all.
|
RE: Economic Expansion --- You Gotta see THE CHART for ... - 
Profile
great question
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread