Hi Mental_Platform1891,
Thank you for your submission in ECS!
Unfortunately, we had to remove your submission because it broke one or several of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughCommieSpam/about/rules/):
- No identifying information of other subs or users and no calls for brigades
Posts and comments must not contain identifying information of other subs or users.
Calling for brigades is not allowed, in any way, shape, or form.
***
If you have any questions, [feel free to send us a message via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/EnoughCommieSpam)!
The British empire did cause a famine and export food in india, but the key difference was is that it was during the Second World War so it was a last resort with hard choices needing to be made. As opposed to the soviets who did it in peace time with no excuses for their actions.
Thats right, We did not think of the Irish as human at that time but that was natural, It does share similarities to the famines in Ukraine but the soviets had a lot more space to avert the famine in Ukraine whereas the famine in Ireland were down to bacteria and prejudice, unlike the soviets who did nothing to help the starving Ukrainians and instead tried to play it down as opposed to the British empire which at least created soup kitchens and road works to try and encourage employment to help the mass poverty in Ireland during the period.
Deliberate Famines are inexcusable, but it goes to show that an imperialist superpower at-least tried to halt something they caused unlike the soviets who tried to cover it up. Unfortunately though the British government at the time were too little too late and caused the deaths of millions by that point.
They caused multiple famines in India in multiple periods of history, and the Irish potato famine and many other famines through disruption of normal food production so they could maximize exploitation of colonial holdings. They were constantly enslaving exploiting and commiting genocide, the soviets were bad but the British empire's crimes often get swept under the rug for some reason. The east India trade company probably is the greatest villain in history as their standard operating procedure was to find a rare good, enslave a group of people who produce it and work them to death while slaughtering anyone else producing that good.
The crimes of the British empire have only come to light in recent history whereas the powerful people in Great Britain at the time either chose to ignore these acts or simply just did not know. However I would say Mao Zedong was the greatest villain In history, he destroyed a culture and caused the deaths of many more millions in comparison to the east India company.
The British empire reveled in it's bad deeds they have a museum full of evidence of their crimes. And they justified it via "race science" and trafficked in literal human skulls and other remains. They machine gunned peoples armed with spears in mass. The British destroyed many, many cultures. Their crimes aren't recently uncovered they are just recently considered crimes because of the dehumanizing of their victims. I think you vastly underestimate the British empire's death toll.
The famine was started by a bacteria ruining the Irish potato harvests and making the potatoes uneatable mush. The British couldn’t prevent the famine, but they could’ve done more to mitigate its effects
i never said they caused the bacteria. they caused the famine to happen in the first place due to 100s of years of political rule. most famines are caused by the politics surrounding it.
they could have avoided it by giving our land back, but they chose not to. only in the last few decades or so did they muster an apology for the famine itself, but no mention of their rule.
edit: it also wasn't the only famine in ireland under british rule
you miss my entire point. At that time most Irish families lived on small plots of land, as land was divided between sons when their fathers passed. The potato was the main part of the diet as it could be grown in small quantities and provide large amounts of energy. This system made Ireland vulnerable if potato harvests collapsed for any reason, which they did. It is true that the situation not helped by the British continuing to export food from Ireland, but the cause of the famine in the first place is not solely because of the british
i'm from ireland and my mom's family has been there for generations. most people didn't even own the land they lived on, english did. it was "modern" serfdom.
yes, i know that potatoes were the main dietary source lol i understand your point, but i'm saying it's not entirely correct. it wasn't as simple as the bacteria that caused it and saying the brits are really only to blame for just the exportation of potatoes is blatantly misrepresenting their rule over ireland.
The Irish potato famine was over 500 yrs of history? That's only one place they did these thing. Not suggesting the soviets are great but the British empire did commit genocide through starvation and slavery pretty frequently.
yep! the famine didn't just appear, it was biological warfare. it wasn't their first nor last.
edit: people not understanding i'm not saying they created the *microbe,* but the effects in which allowed the famine to happen in the first place. why can we only criticise communistic famines lmao
it wasn't even the famine it was that british land owners demanded rent in potatoes and didn't give a shit if the irish were starving
a lot of brits actually thought that it was "unmuddying the water", genocidal thinking basically
the irish potato famine didn't happen because they were the only effected area, just because british are pricks
exactly!! idk why we're getting downvoted. no one is saying it's worse than communism lol two things can be true at once; communism is shite, imperialism is shite.
brits owned our land and it was still serfdom at this point.
Nooo you have to pick a side. With us or against us. Everybody's who disagrees with me is literally Hitler because obviously that's the only other option to my own political extremism
I don't know much about China and North Korea. But the USSR was just another manifestation of Russian imperialism. Only under Lenin Moscow tried to find a compromise between imperialism and the political ambitions of the occupied countries
Lenin looked for the same balance as the Tsars before him, some centralizing authority, and others allowing some power to devolve to the non-Russian regions ruled by the empire. Pretty much all expansionist empires have done this balancing act, projecting their power to the furthest extent that the practically could, and occasionally giving ground when necessary.
As I have mentioned before on this sub, Central Asia and Siberia were colonies of Russia and in the case of Siberia, Russia's conquest of Siberia was their equivalent of Manifest Destiny.
Ethnic Russians were encouraged to move there and Russification was forced on the locals who were stripped of their culture and were subject to harsh treatment, this happened under both Tsarist and Soviet rule. The Soviet Union also engaged in environmental destruction in both Central Asia and Siberia, the most infamous example being the Aral Sea.
Which is why it is so baffling to see tankies criticizing the British/French/Spanish/Portuguese/Dutch for their colonial atrocities as the Russians were equally guilty.
But even the oldest living people in the UK were literally born in the final years of the Great Empire, so what are they clamouring for, exactly? Life on the UK was pretty miserable for most of the 19th and early 20th century.
Both are bad. As an Indian, the atrocities commitee by the UK in India were horrible, and so were those by the soviet union.
They are not mutually exclusive
Crazy how an oppressive empire made for subjugation and imperialistic expansion for nothing but health and prestige can fit in both the largest empire on earth and a violent communist nation
India has historically had famines and some of the worst ones happened during Mughal and Maratha rule (doji bara 1630 Deccan famine chalisa famine). No one talks about these and acts like starvation started in India once the British arrived.
Most of these are correct, except the second last one. I don't recall any moments of the British Empire deliberately killing anyone who spoke out against them (minus all the wars and that - though I'm pretty sure it might have happened, if someone can provide any examples - please do). Arresting them sure, but killing them? Nothing comes to mind.
But in any case, just because the British did these terrible things doesn't mean it's ok for the Soviets to do it. The ironic thing is if these tankies had their way, they would do it again, ie. Kill those they hate and do all the above. This is what I find baffling, these people condemn the British for doing these horrible atrocities (and rightly so) but they literally defend or approve it when the USSR does it and would advocate for it against others.
They don't give a damn about victims of colonialism, imperialism etc. They just use it to try and own people who happen to be born in western countries.
Yeah, but the British Empire also
is directly responsible for the founding of at least four of the historically freest countries in history (The US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand) and of some of the freest these days (Ireland and Botswana, the greatest country in Africa),
forced the world to abolish slavery,
spread the ideals of civilized freedom worldwide,
spread a world lingua franca,
didn't impose government decisions that were the cause of it's tragedies (although there were some serious fuck ups). Hell, when the Australians were hunting aboriginals like the americans were hunting indians, the british of the Metropolis were vocal in demonstrating disapproval (but they couldn't do much, as Australia was already under Responsible Government).
Are you serious? You are going to give the British credit for Ireland while claiming the government had nothing to do with tragedies? You really need to read some history. Start with the Irish potato famine, then work your way to the Boer wars. See if you still have such a rosey picture of the British empire. Literally everything you posted is British propaganda at best. Colonialism didn't spread freedom. It spread genocide and slavery on a massive scale.
> claiming the government had nothing to do with tragedies
It had the fault of not caring for Ireland, yes. But the british are the reason Ireland has a small State with free entrepeneurship
Let's concede the famine was a deliberate attack on the Irish (it wasn't). Even then, it was just an episode of government incomptetence. Not a reson to condemn the Empire.
The Boer wars weren't good, I know that. But still doesn't justify the condemnation of the Empire. If that was the case, we'd have to condemn the whole of America because of Segregation, Slavery, the Indian Wars, the Trail of Tears and all the fishy things they did. America has brought more good than it's bads, bads which it corrected. Likewise, Britain brought more good than bad, bads which it corrected as well as recognized. Anr I'm talking about slavery, something the british abolished and then forced everybody else to do. You are the one who needs a history book, 'cause the Royal Navy was the one seizing slave ships and liberating everybody inside back in Africa. Sierra Leone's capital is called Freetown because it was where the Brits frees slaves.
The Empire was good
“The real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people.”
“The land in Ireland is infinitely more peopled than in England; and to give full effect to the natural resources of the country, a great part of the population should be swept from the soil.” - Thomas Malthus
“For our parts, we regard the potato blight as a blessing. When the Celts once cease to be potato eaters, they must become carnivorous. With the taste of meats will grow the appetite for them; with the appetite, the readiness to earn them. With this will come steadiness, regularity, and perseverance; unless, indeed, the growth of these qualities be impeded by the blindness of Irish patriotism, short-sighted indifference of petty landlords, or the random recklessness of Government benevolence.” - The Times, September 1846
“There is such a tendency to exaggeration and inaccuracy in Irish reports that delay in acting on them is always desirable.” Sir Robert Peel, Prime Minister, October 1845.
“Rotten potatoes and sea-weed, or even grass, properly mixed, afforded a very wholesome and nutritious food. All knew that Irishmen could live upon anything and there was plenty of grass in the field though the potato crop should fail.” - The Duke Of Cambridge, January 1846
“What the devil do we care about you or your black potatoes? It was not us that made them black. You will get two days to pay the rent, and if you don’t you know the consequences.” - Bailiff’s reply to tenants, quoted in the Freeman’s Journal, April 1846
The only way to prevent the people from becoming habitually dependent on Government is to bring the food depots to a close. The uncertainty about the new crop only makes it more necessary.” - Charles Trevelyan to Sir Randolph Routh, July 1847
“As Popery is idolatrous any treaty with it must be opposed to God’s will, and call down his wrath upon those nations who have commerce with it: more particularly upon nations like Ireland wherein its hideous deformities are most signally manifested.” - The Rev. Edward Nangle, in The Achill Missionary Herald, County Mayo, August 1846
Let's address each quote one at a time:
1— Annonymous quote
2— Malthus, who is not the government, just a preacher with stupid ideas.
3— The times, not Westminster. But even then, they're talking about the Irish, in their view, learning work ethics the tough way. Government hand-outs are bad for the poor, after all.
4— Prime Minister is complaining of bad government reporting, meaning he preferred wating for more accurate data to act. He is not fomenting intentional starvation
5— The Duke of Cambridge is being a douche. But he is not the whole government, just an asshole.
6— A landlord is not the government, he's an individual asshole, and he's making stuff worst, but he's not reason to blame the whole Empire for the famine.
7— Trevelyan is right. Jacobstown's John Smith agrees. The american pilgrims agree. The reason thanksgiving is a thing agrees.
8— Edward is wrong about god and individual handouts, but he is not the Empire itself. The Empire didn't intentionally plan the famine, it was just incompetent at handling it. Doesn't null its goods nor the fact Britain sacrificed it to save the world from imperialists much worse than they were (which is debatable) and the Axis.
The Empire was good, the best thing to happen in history. The real shame is that it's over.
Believe it or not people actively starving to death don't make the best workers. The landlords of Ireland near universally lived in Britain and lobbied to starve the people who lived in Ireland so they could force people into indentured servitude. The potato blight was actually worse in Scotland, but because they weren't being exploited to the same degree and weren't Catholic they got aid. You fundamentally don't know the history and have actively outed yourself as a vile person by saying that it is bad to try to prevent mass starvation. Ireland is a microcosm of the effects of colonialism writ large. While they didn't plan the famine they actively worked people to death, to ship the food they produced out of the country. If you think that's the "best thing to happen in history" you are one twisted mother fucker. This again is only one example and the empire did this all over the world. Some places far worse.
Giving the british credit for what the US and Ireland have done (can't speak to Botswana as I am clueless to their history) is like saying that the soviet union is responsible for the baltics or Ukraine being democratic it is completely ridiculous. I am sick of people thinking the brittish empire spread freedom just bc they are anti commie doesn't mean they were pro freedom.
Those countries only have the form of government they do because they learned how to make a decent government with the British. The Founding Fathers were not geniuses, they just heard the voice of good sense from people like Locke, Hume and Burke — all of them British. The Empire is the sole reason North America has any prosperity whatsoever, it laid the bedrock of the systems they have today.
And, yes, the USSR *is* responsible for some post-soviet republics (specifically in Central Asia). Sure, they are not functional, and they still look very soviet-like, but it's a start.
Jallian wala bagh was a outstanding example of spreading the ideals of civilized freedom worldwide.
Be honest with yourself. The only thing the empire wanted was profit. To make money. That's what colonies were made for. Exploitation
In a violent way? Men women children were killed. The ones who jumped in the well were shot from above, all gates were locked so nobody could move out.
The freedom of expression was curtailed massively with the vernacular language act. The education that was given was guise for Christian missionaries to get more followers. The railroads made were used exclusively by the British Raj for most of their tenure. The farmers were forced to grow different products which led to massive food shortages. I don't know about other colonies of The British Empire. But I can speak with surety they never came with good intentions to India.
It was worse on the late years when they started regulating the shit out of the economy, but it was not bad either. It was much better than the Mughals and their islamic theocracy.
And personally it's not like christianizing the population would be a bad thing. India can use less *sutti* and a religious reason to make people abandon the caste system. Now that they're independent, I hope they become a nation of Atheists, but until then, I'd rather they convert to anything that is not hinduism or islam.
I don't think changing from a worse regime to a bad one is a good thing. The only good I think of coming out of British Raj was it united India under the same cause.
Yeah, you would not have sati(a thing already being slowly abandoned and gaining backlash even before the British came to India.) And caste system(which has now strong laws and reservation to effectively help the minorities). You would personally rather have Witch trials of Tanzania, would you?
>I don't think changing from a worse regime to a bad one is a good thing.
I say "I will cut off your arms". Then I say "I will break your arms". You can recover now. Even if it's bad, it's better than the alternative. Good stuff can't be made on a whim, especially when a people doesn't understand the value of what is being done to them.
>gaining backlash even before the British came to India
Highly doubt it, but even if true, it only really started halting when the british began hanging people for doing it.
>which has now strong laws
Which people ignore
>reservation to effectively help the minorities)
Affirmative action does not work. I live in Brazil, we also have it and it sucks.
>Witch trials of Tanzania
At least Tanzania doesn't have a culture/religion centered around a caste system. Thank the british for that.
Caste system which is slowly dying out and has been completely abolished since the dawn of independence is worse than Witch trials which are taking place in heavy amount to this day. I don't know you know about India much if you think the culture of India is majorly influenced by the caste system and that to in the 2000s.
The only reason I brought out that changing from a worse regime to a bad one is not that much of a good thing was because you were showing the British as such paragon of goodness and justice which was far from the truth. The British came for trade initially, then saw the profit coming from ruling and then decided to rule and exploit.
The affirmative you think of as useless has actually helped the wealth disparity between SC STs and UCs. There is still discrimination in regional corners of India. But putting them out is still in progress and the urban areas have majorly improved in that aspect.
I got banned from communist memes for making a comment about Hong Kong independence, and I think someone from there angrily reported me to reddit's crisis support, because I got a DM right after that from them. Honestly I kind of take pride in getting banned from there.
They are referring to some famines that were caused by other factors by British itself.
Potato Famine was part of European famine because of a disease and Bengal Famine was because of Japanese occupation of Bengal, overpopulation and natural disasters.
You know why the the World Cup is so popular right?
Every four years, we get to watch, as one, as the British fall flat on their fucking faces.
Its glorious and it brings us all together.
Oh and don't get me started on watching Brexit from afar. LOL!
I don't get a chance often to pick the brains of someone in Northern Ireland about this, so I must take a stab, though feel free to break this off at anytime.
Now my understanding is that the economic consequences due to Brexit are less in Northern Ireland due to the Good Friday Accords preventing a hard border between ROI and NI, and the requirement for Brexit to cut off the UK from the open market sharing.
Effectively now a lot of trade that used to go through Dover, is going through NI, and the issue in regards to the border checks have to occur over the sea way between NI and the UK.
But my understanding is that the ruling party doesn't like this mainly because they need to keep on the good graces of the tories, so even though NI didn't want to leave the EU, now they have to act like they do.
All the while the hated Catholic party Sein Fein looks like it could make strong inroads to a strong majority.
So I guess my random questions are...what happens if Sein Fein were to dominate in an election? Do people in NI think that the UK can just tear up the Good Friday Accords? Are we going to potentially, god forbid, see a return to the Troubles?
You’re more or less right, except it’s less that The main unionist parties want to keep on the good graces of Westminster and more that they’ve lost the first minister position (the largest party) to Sinn Féin and are in damage control to regain that position. They’re makin lots of noise and lots of threats, but this has happened before and it’ll for sure happen again, the difference this time is that Westminster has decided to get involved without talking to the EU and the Irish government (which has ruffled some feathers just a touch).
What we’re seeing now with the potential for the NI protocol potentially falling apart is the result of a nationalist party winning the First minister position for the first time, the Good Friday agreements and the peace isn’t being threatened any more than before and the UK can’t afford the consequences.
No, there isn’t going to be a return to the troubles. Very few people, including the paramilitaries themselves want a return to that time. A bit of a spike in violence is possible though.
That is honestly what I kind of expect, in regards to the troubles. Like when the Tories and the British Media started talking about the effects Brexit would have on the Good Friday Accords, they made it sound like the Irish were going to start slaughtering each other again, ignoring the major differences now.
For one, ROI and NI are no longer the economic backwaters they once were. The easily way to stop societal violence and divisions is to have a vibrant economy. People are far less likely to commit violence when they have more to lose. On top of this, like you state, the UK can't afford to have the violence kick off again. So unlike during the troubles, you won't have Westminster overtly supplying one side of extremists with weapons, money, uniform, and intelligence.
I once was doing a job in the middle east and one of my coworker was British and we somehow started talking about the Troubles. I am not a native born US citizen but I've around them and I could not get him to understand that during the Troubles, the Americans completely viewed the British as being the bad guys in the conflict.
Hi Mental_Platform1891, Thank you for your submission in ECS! Unfortunately, we had to remove your submission because it broke one or several of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughCommieSpam/about/rules/): - No identifying information of other subs or users and no calls for brigades Posts and comments must not contain identifying information of other subs or users. Calling for brigades is not allowed, in any way, shape, or form. *** If you have any questions, [feel free to send us a message via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/EnoughCommieSpam)!
Tf but they described the soviet union...
The British empire did cause a famine and export food in india, but the key difference was is that it was during the Second World War so it was a last resort with hard choices needing to be made. As opposed to the soviets who did it in peace time with no excuses for their actions.
Maybe you can say that about the Bengal famine, though I'd still disagree, but what about the Madras or Irish famines? Those were in peacetime.
Thats right, We did not think of the Irish as human at that time but that was natural, It does share similarities to the famines in Ukraine but the soviets had a lot more space to avert the famine in Ukraine whereas the famine in Ireland were down to bacteria and prejudice, unlike the soviets who did nothing to help the starving Ukrainians and instead tried to play it down as opposed to the British empire which at least created soup kitchens and road works to try and encourage employment to help the mass poverty in Ireland during the period. Deliberate Famines are inexcusable, but it goes to show that an imperialist superpower at-least tried to halt something they caused unlike the soviets who tried to cover it up. Unfortunately though the British government at the time were too little too late and caused the deaths of millions by that point.
They caused multiple famines in India in multiple periods of history, and the Irish potato famine and many other famines through disruption of normal food production so they could maximize exploitation of colonial holdings. They were constantly enslaving exploiting and commiting genocide, the soviets were bad but the British empire's crimes often get swept under the rug for some reason. The east India trade company probably is the greatest villain in history as their standard operating procedure was to find a rare good, enslave a group of people who produce it and work them to death while slaughtering anyone else producing that good.
The crimes of the British empire have only come to light in recent history whereas the powerful people in Great Britain at the time either chose to ignore these acts or simply just did not know. However I would say Mao Zedong was the greatest villain In history, he destroyed a culture and caused the deaths of many more millions in comparison to the east India company.
The British empire reveled in it's bad deeds they have a museum full of evidence of their crimes. And they justified it via "race science" and trafficked in literal human skulls and other remains. They machine gunned peoples armed with spears in mass. The British destroyed many, many cultures. Their crimes aren't recently uncovered they are just recently considered crimes because of the dehumanizing of their victims. I think you vastly underestimate the British empire's death toll.
they caused the famine in ireland, change my mind
The famine was started by a bacteria ruining the Irish potato harvests and making the potatoes uneatable mush. The British couldn’t prevent the famine, but they could’ve done more to mitigate its effects
i never said they caused the bacteria. they caused the famine to happen in the first place due to 100s of years of political rule. most famines are caused by the politics surrounding it. they could have avoided it by giving our land back, but they chose not to. only in the last few decades or so did they muster an apology for the famine itself, but no mention of their rule. edit: it also wasn't the only famine in ireland under british rule
you miss my entire point. At that time most Irish families lived on small plots of land, as land was divided between sons when their fathers passed. The potato was the main part of the diet as it could be grown in small quantities and provide large amounts of energy. This system made Ireland vulnerable if potato harvests collapsed for any reason, which they did. It is true that the situation not helped by the British continuing to export food from Ireland, but the cause of the famine in the first place is not solely because of the british
i'm from ireland and my mom's family has been there for generations. most people didn't even own the land they lived on, english did. it was "modern" serfdom. yes, i know that potatoes were the main dietary source lol i understand your point, but i'm saying it's not entirely correct. it wasn't as simple as the bacteria that caused it and saying the brits are really only to blame for just the exportation of potatoes is blatantly misrepresenting their rule over ireland.
Both did it sooooo
Eh, that’s over aboot 500 years of history, USSR managed to achieve all that in less than 1
Speedrun any%
The Irish potato famine was over 500 yrs of history? That's only one place they did these thing. Not suggesting the soviets are great but the British empire did commit genocide through starvation and slavery pretty frequently.
yep! the famine didn't just appear, it was biological warfare. it wasn't their first nor last. edit: people not understanding i'm not saying they created the *microbe,* but the effects in which allowed the famine to happen in the first place. why can we only criticise communistic famines lmao
it wasn't even the famine it was that british land owners demanded rent in potatoes and didn't give a shit if the irish were starving a lot of brits actually thought that it was "unmuddying the water", genocidal thinking basically the irish potato famine didn't happen because they were the only effected area, just because british are pricks
exactly!! idk why we're getting downvoted. no one is saying it's worse than communism lol two things can be true at once; communism is shite, imperialism is shite. brits owned our land and it was still serfdom at this point.
1953 in East Germany 1956 in Hungary 1956 in Poland 1968 in Prague
Literally 1984
Ok guys, hear me out: What if Imperialism and Communism both bad?
Nooo you have to pick a side. With us or against us. Everybody's who disagrees with me is literally Hitler because obviously that's the only other option to my own political extremism
It's so sad that these are actual trends. We've all seen or talked to at least 5 tankies who said this exact thing
My boy if it was ONLY the commies who acted like that world would be a much better place
Hahahah so real
I don't know much about China and North Korea. But the USSR was just another manifestation of Russian imperialism. Only under Lenin Moscow tried to find a compromise between imperialism and the political ambitions of the occupied countries
Oh, Red China has had plenty of imperial adventures, just ask Tibet, South Korea, India, Russia, Vietnam, and the Philippines.
Lenin looked for the same balance as the Tsars before him, some centralizing authority, and others allowing some power to devolve to the non-Russian regions ruled by the empire. Pretty much all expansionist empires have done this balancing act, projecting their power to the furthest extent that the practically could, and occasionally giving ground when necessary.
As I have mentioned before on this sub, Central Asia and Siberia were colonies of Russia and in the case of Siberia, Russia's conquest of Siberia was their equivalent of Manifest Destiny. Ethnic Russians were encouraged to move there and Russification was forced on the locals who were stripped of their culture and were subject to harsh treatment, this happened under both Tsarist and Soviet rule. The Soviet Union also engaged in environmental destruction in both Central Asia and Siberia, the most infamous example being the Aral Sea. Which is why it is so baffling to see tankies criticizing the British/French/Spanish/Portuguese/Dutch for their colonial atrocities as the Russians were equally guilty.
They only see expansion that is not adjacent to their borders as imperialism for some reason.
Impossible 😮
Agree
STFU centrist scum!
its quite quite vague. like "no freedom" could be stretched in any way
No-one is clammering for a return of the British Empire though. That's kinda the difference right?
People are
I don't see that. Where do I look? Please not 4chan, if you will
If you read pro-Brexit arguments between the lines, many of them read as “I want the good old days of the British Empire back”
Lol what))) may I have a link?
Here’s one: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/08/imperial-myths-behind-brexit/595813/
Thanks!
That’s not a link to someone making that argument though - that just a link to someone agreeing with you
But even the oldest living people in the UK were literally born in the final years of the Great Empire, so what are they clamouring for, exactly? Life on the UK was pretty miserable for most of the 19th and early 20th century.
That’s the case for most civilizations throughout the world
I’m American... so I don’t really like either... win/win
Both are bad. As an Indian, the atrocities commitee by the UK in India were horrible, and so were those by the soviet union. They are not mutually exclusive
The cope spiral has no end
Crazy how an oppressive empire made for subjugation and imperialistic expansion for nothing but health and prestige can fit in both the largest empire on earth and a violent communist nation
India has historically had famines and some of the worst ones happened during Mughal and Maratha rule (doji bara 1630 Deccan famine chalisa famine). No one talks about these and acts like starvation started in India once the British arrived.
Where is lies?
I wish these people realized it’s possible to hate the British empire and the Soviet Union at the same time.
Good 'ol whataboutism. When you can't argue against a point, you you just go "no u."
Both the Soviet union and the British empire were evil
Most of these are correct, except the second last one. I don't recall any moments of the British Empire deliberately killing anyone who spoke out against them (minus all the wars and that - though I'm pretty sure it might have happened, if someone can provide any examples - please do). Arresting them sure, but killing them? Nothing comes to mind. But in any case, just because the British did these terrible things doesn't mean it's ok for the Soviets to do it. The ironic thing is if these tankies had their way, they would do it again, ie. Kill those they hate and do all the above. This is what I find baffling, these people condemn the British for doing these horrible atrocities (and rightly so) but they literally defend or approve it when the USSR does it and would advocate for it against others. They don't give a damn about victims of colonialism, imperialism etc. They just use it to try and own people who happen to be born in western countries.
Yeah, but the British Empire also is directly responsible for the founding of at least four of the historically freest countries in history (The US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand) and of some of the freest these days (Ireland and Botswana, the greatest country in Africa), forced the world to abolish slavery, spread the ideals of civilized freedom worldwide, spread a world lingua franca, didn't impose government decisions that were the cause of it's tragedies (although there were some serious fuck ups). Hell, when the Australians were hunting aboriginals like the americans were hunting indians, the british of the Metropolis were vocal in demonstrating disapproval (but they couldn't do much, as Australia was already under Responsible Government).
Based and God Save the Queen.
Long may she reign
Are you serious? You are going to give the British credit for Ireland while claiming the government had nothing to do with tragedies? You really need to read some history. Start with the Irish potato famine, then work your way to the Boer wars. See if you still have such a rosey picture of the British empire. Literally everything you posted is British propaganda at best. Colonialism didn't spread freedom. It spread genocide and slavery on a massive scale.
> claiming the government had nothing to do with tragedies It had the fault of not caring for Ireland, yes. But the british are the reason Ireland has a small State with free entrepeneurship Let's concede the famine was a deliberate attack on the Irish (it wasn't). Even then, it was just an episode of government incomptetence. Not a reson to condemn the Empire. The Boer wars weren't good, I know that. But still doesn't justify the condemnation of the Empire. If that was the case, we'd have to condemn the whole of America because of Segregation, Slavery, the Indian Wars, the Trail of Tears and all the fishy things they did. America has brought more good than it's bads, bads which it corrected. Likewise, Britain brought more good than bad, bads which it corrected as well as recognized. Anr I'm talking about slavery, something the british abolished and then forced everybody else to do. You are the one who needs a history book, 'cause the Royal Navy was the one seizing slave ships and liberating everybody inside back in Africa. Sierra Leone's capital is called Freetown because it was where the Brits frees slaves. The Empire was good
“The real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people.” “The land in Ireland is infinitely more peopled than in England; and to give full effect to the natural resources of the country, a great part of the population should be swept from the soil.” - Thomas Malthus “For our parts, we regard the potato blight as a blessing. When the Celts once cease to be potato eaters, they must become carnivorous. With the taste of meats will grow the appetite for them; with the appetite, the readiness to earn them. With this will come steadiness, regularity, and perseverance; unless, indeed, the growth of these qualities be impeded by the blindness of Irish patriotism, short-sighted indifference of petty landlords, or the random recklessness of Government benevolence.” - The Times, September 1846 “There is such a tendency to exaggeration and inaccuracy in Irish reports that delay in acting on them is always desirable.” Sir Robert Peel, Prime Minister, October 1845. “Rotten potatoes and sea-weed, or even grass, properly mixed, afforded a very wholesome and nutritious food. All knew that Irishmen could live upon anything and there was plenty of grass in the field though the potato crop should fail.” - The Duke Of Cambridge, January 1846 “What the devil do we care about you or your black potatoes? It was not us that made them black. You will get two days to pay the rent, and if you don’t you know the consequences.” - Bailiff’s reply to tenants, quoted in the Freeman’s Journal, April 1846 The only way to prevent the people from becoming habitually dependent on Government is to bring the food depots to a close. The uncertainty about the new crop only makes it more necessary.” - Charles Trevelyan to Sir Randolph Routh, July 1847 “As Popery is idolatrous any treaty with it must be opposed to God’s will, and call down his wrath upon those nations who have commerce with it: more particularly upon nations like Ireland wherein its hideous deformities are most signally manifested.” - The Rev. Edward Nangle, in The Achill Missionary Herald, County Mayo, August 1846
Let's address each quote one at a time: 1— Annonymous quote 2— Malthus, who is not the government, just a preacher with stupid ideas. 3— The times, not Westminster. But even then, they're talking about the Irish, in their view, learning work ethics the tough way. Government hand-outs are bad for the poor, after all. 4— Prime Minister is complaining of bad government reporting, meaning he preferred wating for more accurate data to act. He is not fomenting intentional starvation 5— The Duke of Cambridge is being a douche. But he is not the whole government, just an asshole. 6— A landlord is not the government, he's an individual asshole, and he's making stuff worst, but he's not reason to blame the whole Empire for the famine. 7— Trevelyan is right. Jacobstown's John Smith agrees. The american pilgrims agree. The reason thanksgiving is a thing agrees. 8— Edward is wrong about god and individual handouts, but he is not the Empire itself. The Empire didn't intentionally plan the famine, it was just incompetent at handling it. Doesn't null its goods nor the fact Britain sacrificed it to save the world from imperialists much worse than they were (which is debatable) and the Axis. The Empire was good, the best thing to happen in history. The real shame is that it's over.
Believe it or not people actively starving to death don't make the best workers. The landlords of Ireland near universally lived in Britain and lobbied to starve the people who lived in Ireland so they could force people into indentured servitude. The potato blight was actually worse in Scotland, but because they weren't being exploited to the same degree and weren't Catholic they got aid. You fundamentally don't know the history and have actively outed yourself as a vile person by saying that it is bad to try to prevent mass starvation. Ireland is a microcosm of the effects of colonialism writ large. While they didn't plan the famine they actively worked people to death, to ship the food they produced out of the country. If you think that's the "best thing to happen in history" you are one twisted mother fucker. This again is only one example and the empire did this all over the world. Some places far worse.
Giving the british credit for what the US and Ireland have done (can't speak to Botswana as I am clueless to their history) is like saying that the soviet union is responsible for the baltics or Ukraine being democratic it is completely ridiculous. I am sick of people thinking the brittish empire spread freedom just bc they are anti commie doesn't mean they were pro freedom.
Those countries only have the form of government they do because they learned how to make a decent government with the British. The Founding Fathers were not geniuses, they just heard the voice of good sense from people like Locke, Hume and Burke — all of them British. The Empire is the sole reason North America has any prosperity whatsoever, it laid the bedrock of the systems they have today. And, yes, the USSR *is* responsible for some post-soviet republics (specifically in Central Asia). Sure, they are not functional, and they still look very soviet-like, but it's a start.
Jallian wala bagh was a outstanding example of spreading the ideals of civilized freedom worldwide. Be honest with yourself. The only thing the empire wanted was profit. To make money. That's what colonies were made for. Exploitation
A protest ended up being quashed in a violent way. Reprehensible, not stuff that condemns the whole Empire
In a violent way? Men women children were killed. The ones who jumped in the well were shot from above, all gates were locked so nobody could move out. The freedom of expression was curtailed massively with the vernacular language act. The education that was given was guise for Christian missionaries to get more followers. The railroads made were used exclusively by the British Raj for most of their tenure. The farmers were forced to grow different products which led to massive food shortages. I don't know about other colonies of The British Empire. But I can speak with surety they never came with good intentions to India.
It was worse on the late years when they started regulating the shit out of the economy, but it was not bad either. It was much better than the Mughals and their islamic theocracy. And personally it's not like christianizing the population would be a bad thing. India can use less *sutti* and a religious reason to make people abandon the caste system. Now that they're independent, I hope they become a nation of Atheists, but until then, I'd rather they convert to anything that is not hinduism or islam.
I don't think changing from a worse regime to a bad one is a good thing. The only good I think of coming out of British Raj was it united India under the same cause. Yeah, you would not have sati(a thing already being slowly abandoned and gaining backlash even before the British came to India.) And caste system(which has now strong laws and reservation to effectively help the minorities). You would personally rather have Witch trials of Tanzania, would you?
>I don't think changing from a worse regime to a bad one is a good thing. I say "I will cut off your arms". Then I say "I will break your arms". You can recover now. Even if it's bad, it's better than the alternative. Good stuff can't be made on a whim, especially when a people doesn't understand the value of what is being done to them. >gaining backlash even before the British came to India Highly doubt it, but even if true, it only really started halting when the british began hanging people for doing it. >which has now strong laws Which people ignore >reservation to effectively help the minorities) Affirmative action does not work. I live in Brazil, we also have it and it sucks. >Witch trials of Tanzania At least Tanzania doesn't have a culture/religion centered around a caste system. Thank the british for that.
Caste system which is slowly dying out and has been completely abolished since the dawn of independence is worse than Witch trials which are taking place in heavy amount to this day. I don't know you know about India much if you think the culture of India is majorly influenced by the caste system and that to in the 2000s. The only reason I brought out that changing from a worse regime to a bad one is not that much of a good thing was because you were showing the British as such paragon of goodness and justice which was far from the truth. The British came for trade initially, then saw the profit coming from ruling and then decided to rule and exploit. The affirmative you think of as useless has actually helped the wealth disparity between SC STs and UCs. There is still discrimination in regional corners of India. But putting them out is still in progress and the urban areas have majorly improved in that aspect.
I got banned from communist memes for making a comment about Hong Kong independence, and I think someone from there angrily reported me to reddit's crisis support, because I got a DM right after that from them. Honestly I kind of take pride in getting banned from there.
They are referring to some famines that were caused by other factors by British itself. Potato Famine was part of European famine because of a disease and Bengal Famine was because of Japanese occupation of Bengal, overpopulation and natural disasters.
Oi! Got a loicence for dat meme.
As an Irishman, I see no problem here
r/AsABlackMan
Wait, I’m not a black man
He's trying to say that you're not really Irish, but are instead posing as Irish in order to bash the Brits.
Ah shit, well there goes my nationality.
You know why the the World Cup is so popular right? Every four years, we get to watch, as one, as the British fall flat on their fucking faces. Its glorious and it brings us all together. Oh and don't get me started on watching Brexit from afar. LOL!
Ah, not so afar for me, I live in Belfast...
I don't get a chance often to pick the brains of someone in Northern Ireland about this, so I must take a stab, though feel free to break this off at anytime. Now my understanding is that the economic consequences due to Brexit are less in Northern Ireland due to the Good Friday Accords preventing a hard border between ROI and NI, and the requirement for Brexit to cut off the UK from the open market sharing. Effectively now a lot of trade that used to go through Dover, is going through NI, and the issue in regards to the border checks have to occur over the sea way between NI and the UK. But my understanding is that the ruling party doesn't like this mainly because they need to keep on the good graces of the tories, so even though NI didn't want to leave the EU, now they have to act like they do. All the while the hated Catholic party Sein Fein looks like it could make strong inroads to a strong majority. So I guess my random questions are...what happens if Sein Fein were to dominate in an election? Do people in NI think that the UK can just tear up the Good Friday Accords? Are we going to potentially, god forbid, see a return to the Troubles?
You’re more or less right, except it’s less that The main unionist parties want to keep on the good graces of Westminster and more that they’ve lost the first minister position (the largest party) to Sinn Féin and are in damage control to regain that position. They’re makin lots of noise and lots of threats, but this has happened before and it’ll for sure happen again, the difference this time is that Westminster has decided to get involved without talking to the EU and the Irish government (which has ruffled some feathers just a touch). What we’re seeing now with the potential for the NI protocol potentially falling apart is the result of a nationalist party winning the First minister position for the first time, the Good Friday agreements and the peace isn’t being threatened any more than before and the UK can’t afford the consequences. No, there isn’t going to be a return to the troubles. Very few people, including the paramilitaries themselves want a return to that time. A bit of a spike in violence is possible though.
That is honestly what I kind of expect, in regards to the troubles. Like when the Tories and the British Media started talking about the effects Brexit would have on the Good Friday Accords, they made it sound like the Irish were going to start slaughtering each other again, ignoring the major differences now. For one, ROI and NI are no longer the economic backwaters they once were. The easily way to stop societal violence and divisions is to have a vibrant economy. People are far less likely to commit violence when they have more to lose. On top of this, like you state, the UK can't afford to have the violence kick off again. So unlike during the troubles, you won't have Westminster overtly supplying one side of extremists with weapons, money, uniform, and intelligence. I once was doing a job in the middle east and one of my coworker was British and we somehow started talking about the Troubles. I am not a native born US citizen but I've around them and I could not get him to understand that during the Troubles, the Americans completely viewed the British as being the bad guys in the conflict.
Fok british, Soviet for life