Yes, Native Americans Were the Victims of Genocide

First topic message reminder :

Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz grew up in rural Oklahoma, the daughter of a tenant farmer and part-Indian mother. She has been active in the international Indigenous movement for more than four decades and is known for her lifelong commitment to national and international social justice issues. After receiving her PhD in history at the University of California at Los Angeles, she taught in the newly established Native American Studies Program at California State University, Hayward, and helped found the Departments of Ethnic Studies and Women’s Studies. Her latest book is An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States.

Mass Grave at Wounded Knee


This paper, written under the title, “U.S. Settler-Colonialism and Genocide Policies,” was delivered at the Organization of American Historians 2015 Annual Meeting in St. Louis, MO on April 18, 2015.

US policies and actions related to Indigenous peoples, though often termed “racist” or “discriminatory,” are rarely depicted as what they are: classic cases of imperialism and a particular form of colonialism—settler colonialism. As anthropologist Patrick Wolfe writes, “The question of genocide is never far from discussions of settler colonialism. Land is life—or, at least, land is necessary for life.”i The history of the United States is a history of settler colonialism.

The extension of the United States from sea to shining sea was the intention and design of the country’s founders. “Free” land was the magnet that attracted European settlers. After the war for independence but preceding the writing of the US Constitution, the Continental Congress produced the Northwest Ordinance. This was the first law of the incipient republic, revealing the motive for those desiring independence. It was the blueprint for gobbling up the British-protected Indian Territory (“Ohio Country”) on the other side of the Appalachians and Alleghenies. Britain had made settlement there illegal with the Proclamation of 1763.

In 1801, President Jefferson aptly described the new settler state’s intentions for horizontal and vertical continental expansion, stating: “However our present interests may restrain us within our own limits, it is impossible not to look forward to distant times, when our rapid multiplication will expand itself beyond those limits and cover the whole northern, if not the southern continent, with a people speaking the same language, governed in similar form by similar laws.” This vision of manifest destiny found form a few years later in the Monroe Doctrine, signaling the intention of annexing or dominating former Spanish colonial territories in the Americas and the Pacific, which would be put into practice during the rest of the century.

The form of colonialism that the Indigenous peoples of North America have experienced was modern from the beginning: the expansion of European corporations, backed by government armies, into foreign areas, with subsequent expropriation of lands and resources. Settler colonialism requires a genocidal policy. Native nations and communities, while struggling to maintain fundamental values and collectivity, have from the beginning resisted modern colonialism using both defensive and offensive techniques, including the modern forms of armed resistance of national liberation movements and what now is called terrorism. In every instance they have fought and continue to fight for survival as peoples. The objective of US authorities was to terminate their existence as peoples—not as random individuals. This is the very definition of modern genocide.

The objective of US colonialist authorities was to terminate their existence as peoples—not as random individuals. This is the very definition of modern genocide as contrasted with premodern instances of extreme violence that did not have the goal of extinction. The United States as a socioeconomic and political entity is a result of this centuries-long and ongoing colonial process. Modern Indigenous nations and communities are societies formed by their resistance to colonialism, through which they have carried their practices and histories. It is breathtaking, but no miracle, that they have survived as peoples.

Settler-colonialism requires violence or the threat of violence to attain its goals, which then forms the foundation of the United States’ system. People do not hand over their land, resources, children, and futures without a fight, and that fight is met with violence. In employing the force necessary to accomplish its expansionist goals, a colonizing regime institutionalizes violence. The notion that settler-indigenous conflict is an inevitable product of cultural differences and misunderstandings, or that violence was committed equally by the colonized and the colonizer, blurs the nature of the historical processes. Euro-American colonialism, an aspect of the capitalist economic globalization, had from its beginnings a genocidal tendency.

So, what constitutes genocide? My colleague on the panel, Gary Clayton Anderson, in his recent book, “Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian,” argues: “Genocide will never become a widely accepted characterization for what happened in North America, because large numbers of Indians survived and because policies of mass murder on a scale similar to events in central Europe, Cambodia, or Rwanda were never implemented.”ii There are fatal errors in this assessment.

The term “genocide” was coined following the Shoah, or Holocaust, and its prohibition was enshrined in the United Nations convention presented in 1948 and adopted in 1951: the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The convention is not retroactive but is applicable to US-Indigenous relations since 1988, when the US Senate ratified it. The genocide convention is an essential tool for historical analysis of the effects of colonialism in any era, and particularly in US history.

In the convention, any one of five acts is considered genocide if “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”:

(a) killing members of the group;

(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.iii


The followings acts are punishable:

(a) Genocide;

(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

(d) Attempt to commit genocide;

(e) Complicity in genocide.


The term “genocide” is often incorrectly used, such as in Dr. Anderson’s assessment, to describe extreme examples of mass murder, the death of vast numbers of people, as, for instance in Cambodia. What took place in Cambodia was horrific, but it does not fall under the terms of the Genocide Convention, as the Convention specifically refers to a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, with individuals within that group targeted by a government or its agents because they are members of the group or by attacking the underpinnings of the group’s existence as a group being met with the intent to destroy that group in whole or in part. The Cambodian government committed crimes against humanity, but not genocide. Genocide is not an act simply worse than anything else, rather a specific kind of act. The term, “ethnic cleansing,” is a descriptive term created by humanitarian interventionists to describe what was said to be happening in the 1990s wars among the republics of Yugoslavia. It is a descriptive term, not a term of international humanitarian law.

Although clearly the Holocaust was the most extreme of all genocides, the bar set by the Nazis is not the bar required to be considered genocide. The title of the Genocide convention is the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” so the law is about preventing genocide by identifying the elements of government policy, rather than only punishment after the fact. Most importantly, genocide does not have to be complete to be considered genocide.

US history, as well as inherited Indigenous trauma, cannot be understood without dealing with the genocide that the United States committed against Indigenous peoples. From the colonial period through the founding of the United States and continuing in the twentieth century, this has entailed torture, terror, sexual abuse, massacres, systematic military occupations, removals of Indigenous peoples from their ancestral territories, forced removal of Native American children to military-like boarding schools, allotment, and a policy of termination.

Within the logic of settler-colonialism, genocide was the inherent overall policy of the United States from its founding, but there are also specific documented policies of genocide on the part of US administrations that can be identified in at least four distinct periods: the Jacksonian era of forced removal; the California gold rush in Northern California; during the Civil War and in the post Civil War era of the so-called Indian Wars in the Southwest and the Great Plains; and the 1950s termination period; additionally, there is the overlapping period of compulsory boarding schools, 1870s to 1960s. The Carlisle boarding school, founded by US Army officer Richard Henry Pratt in 1879, became a model for others established by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Pratt said in a speech in 1892, "A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one. In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him and save the man."

Cases of genocide carried out as policy may be found in historical documents as well as in the oral histories of Indigenous communities. An example from 1873 is typical, with General William T. Sherman writing, “We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children . . . during an assault, the soldiers can not pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age.”iv

The so-called “Indian Wars” technically ended around 1880, although the Wounded Knee massacre occurred a decade later. Clearly an act with genocidal intent, it is still officially considered a “battle” in the annals of US military genealogy. Congressional Medals of Honor were bestowed on twenty of the soldiers involved. A monument was built at Fort Riley, Kansas, to honor the soldiers killed by friendly fire. A battle streamer was created to honor the event and added to other streamers that are displayed at the Pentagon, West Point, and army bases throughout the world. L. Frank Baum, a Dakota Territory settler later famous for writing The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, edited the Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer at the time. Five days after the sickening event at Wounded Knee, on January 3, 1891, he wrote, “The Pioneer has before declared that our only safety depends upon the total extermination of the Indians. Having wronged them for centuries we had better, in order to protect our civilization, follow it up by one or more wrong and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth.”

Whether 1880 or 1890, most of the collective land base that Native Nations secured through hard fought for treaties made with the United States was lost after that date.

After the end of the Indian Wars, came allotment, another policy of genocide of Native nations as nations, as peoples, the dissolution of the group. Taking the Sioux Nation as an example, even before the Dawes Allotment Act of 1884 was implemented, and with the Black Hills already illegally confiscated by the federal government, a government commission arrived in Sioux territory from Washington, DC, in 1888 with a proposal to reduce the Sioux Nation to six small reservations, a scheme that would leave nine million acres open for Euro-American settlement. The commission found it impossible to obtain signatures of the required three-fourths of the nation as required under the 1868 treaty, and so returned to Washington with a recommendation that the government ignore the treaty and take the land without Sioux consent. The only means to accomplish that goal was legislation, Congress having relieved the government of the obligation to negotiate a treaty. Congress commissioned General George Crook to head a delegation to try again, this time with an offer of $1.50 per acre. In a series of manipulations and dealings with leaders whose people were now starving, the commission garnered the needed signatures. The great Sioux Nation was broken into small islands soon surrounded on all sides by European immigrants, with much of the reservation land a checkerboard with settlers on allotments or leased land.v Creating these isolated reservations broke the historical relationships between clans and communities of the Sioux Nation and opened areas where Europeans settled. It also allowed the Bureau of Indian Affairs to exercise tighter control, buttressed by the bureau’s boarding school system. The Sun Dance, the annual ceremony that had brought Sioux together and reinforced national unity, was outlawed, along with other religious ceremonies. Despite the Sioux people’s weak position under late-nineteenth-century colonial domination, they managed to begin building a modest cattle-ranching business to replace their former bison-hunting economy. In 1903, the US Supreme Court ruled, in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, that a March 3, 1871, appropriations rider was constitutional and that Congress had “plenary” power to manage Indian property. The Office of Indian Affairs could thus dispose of Indian lands and resources regardless of the terms of previous treaty provisions. Legislation followed that opened the reservations to settlement through leasing and even sale of allotments taken out of trust. Nearly all prime grazing lands came to be occupied by non-Indian ranchers by the 1920s.

By the time of the New Deal–Collier era and nullification of Indian land allotment under the Indian Reorganization Act, non-Indians outnumbered Indians on the Sioux reservations three to one. However, “tribal governments” imposed in the wake of the Indian Reorganization Act proved particularly harmful and divisive for the Sioux.”vi Concerning this measure, the late Mathew King, elder traditional historian of the Oglala Sioux (Pine Ridge), observed: “The Bureau of Indian Affairs drew up the constitution and by-laws of this organization with the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. This was the introduction of home rule. . . . The traditional people still hang on to their Treaty, for we are a sovereign nation. We have our own government.”vii “Home rule,” or neocolonialism, proved a short-lived policy, however, for in the early 1950s the United States developed its termination policy, with legislation ordering gradual eradication of every reservation and even the tribal governments.viii At the time of termination and relocation, per capita annual income on the Sioux reservations stood at $355, while that in nearby South Dakota towns was $2,500. Despite these circumstances, in pursuing its termination policy, the Bureau of Indian Affairs advocated the reduction of services and introduced its program to relocate Indians to urban industrial centers, with a high percentage of Sioux moving to San Francisco and Denver in search of jobs.ix

The situations of other Indigenous Nations were similar.

Pawnee Attorney Walter R. Echo-Hawk writes:

In 1881, Indian landholdings in the United States had plummeted to 156 million acres. By 1934, only about 50 million acres remained (an area the size of Idaho and Washington) as a result of the General Allotment Act of 1887. During World War II, the government took 500,000 more acres for military use. Over one hundred tribes, bands, and Rancherias relinquished their lands under various acts of Congress during the termination era of the 1950s. By 1955, the indigenous land base had shrunk to just 2.3 percent of its [size at the end of the Indian wars].x


According to the current consensus among historians, the wholesale transfer of land from Indigenous to Euro-American hands that occurred in the Americas after 1492 is due less to British and US American invasion, warfare, refugee conditions, and genocidal policies in North America than to the bacteria that the invaders unwittingly brought with them. Historian Colin Calloway is among the proponents of this theory writing, “Epidemic diseases would have caused massive depopulation in the Americas whether brought by European invaders or brought home by Native American traders.”xi Such an absolutist assertion renders any other fate for the Indigenous peoples improbable. This is what anthropologist Michael Wilcox has dubbed “the terminal narrative.” Professor Calloway is a careful and widely respected historian of Indigenous North America, but his conclusion articulates a default assumption. The thinking behind the assumption is both ahistorical and illogical in that Europe itself lost a third to one-half of its population to infectious disease during medieval pandemics. The principle reason the consensus view is wrong and ahistorical is that it erases the effects of settler colonialism with its antecedents in the Spanish “Reconquest” and the English conquest of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. By the time Spain, Portugal, and Britain arrived to colonize the Americas, their methods of eradicating peoples or forcing them into dependency and servitude were ingrained, streamlined, and effective.

Whatever disagreement may exist about the size of precolonial Indigenous populations, no one doubts that a rapid demographic decline occurred in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, its timing from region to region depending on when conquest and colonization began. Nearly all the population areas of the Americas were reduced by 90 percent following the onset of colonizing projects, decreasing the targeted Indigenous populations of the Americas from a one hundred million to ten million. Commonly referred to as the most extreme demographic disaster—framed as natural—in human history, it was rarely called genocide until the rise of Indigenous movements in the mid-twentieth century forged new questions.

US scholar Benjamin Keen acknowledges that historians “accept uncritically a fatalistic ‘epidemic plus lack of acquired immunity’ explanation for the shrinkage of Indian populations, without sufficient attention to the socioeconomic factors . . . which predisposed the natives to succumb to even slight infections.”xii Other scholars agree. Geographer William M. Denevan, while not ignoring the existence of widespread epidemic diseases, has emphasized the role of warfare, which reinforced the lethal impact of disease. There were military engagements directly between European and Indigenous nations, but many more saw European powers pitting one Indigenous nation against another or factions within nations, with European allies aiding one or both sides, as was the case in the colonization of the peoples of Ireland, Africa and Asia, and was also a factor in the Holocaust. Other killers cited by Denevan are overwork in mines, frequent outright butchery, malnutrition and starvation resulting from the breakdown of Indigenous trade networks, subsistence food production and loss of land, loss of will to live or reproduce (and thus suicide, abortion, and infanticide), and deportation and enslavement.xiii Anthropologist Henry Dobyns has pointed to the interruption of Indigenous peoples’ trade networks. When colonizing powers seized Indigenous trade routes, the ensuing acute shortages, including food products, weakened populations and forced them into dependency on the colonizers, with European manufactured goods replacing Indigenous ones. Dobyns has estimated that all Indigenous groups suffered serious food shortages one year in four. In these circumstances, the introduction and promotion of alcohol proved addictive and deadly, adding to the breakdown of social order and responsibility.xiv These realities render the myth of “lack of immunity,” including to alcohol, pernicious.

Historian Woodrow Wilson Borah focused on the broader arena of European colonization, which also brought severely reduced populations in the Pacific Islands, Australia, Western Central America, and West Africa.xv Sherburne Cook—associated with Borah in the revisionist Berkeley School, as it was called—studied the attempted destruction of the California Indians. Cook estimated 2,245 deaths among peoples in Northern California—the Wintu, Maidu, Miwak, Omo, Wappo, and Yokuts nations—in late eighteenth-century armed conflicts with the Spanish while some 5,000 died from disease and another 4,000 were relocated to missions. Among the same people in the second half of the nineteenth century, US armed forces killed 4,000, and disease killed another 6,000. Between 1852 and 1867, US citizens kidnapped 4,000 Indian children from these groups in California. Disruption of Indigenous social structures under these conditions and dire economic necessity forced many of the women into prostitution in goldfield camps, further wrecking what vestiges of family life remained in these matriarchal societies.

Historians and others who deny genocide emphasize population attrition by disease, weakening Indigenous peoples ability to resist. In doing so they refuse to accept that the colonization of America was genocidal by plan, not simply the tragic fate of populations lacking immunity to disease. If disease could have done the job, it is not clear why the United States found it necessary to carry out unrelenting wars against Indigenous communities in order to gain every inch of land they took from them—along with the prior period of British colonization, nearly three hundred years of eliminationist warfare.

In the case of the Jewish Holocaust, no one denies that more Jews died of starvation, overwork, and disease under Nazi incarceration than died in gas ovens or murdered by other means, yet the acts of creating and maintaining the conditions that led to those deaths clearly constitute genocide. And no one recites the terminal narrative associated with Native Americans, or Armenians, or Bosnian.

Not all of the acts iterated in the genocide convention are required to exist to constitute genocide; any one of them suffices. In cases of United States genocidal policies and actions, each of the five requirements can be seen.

First, Killing members of the group: The genocide convention does not specify that large numbers of people must be killed in order to constitute genocide, rather that members of the group are killed because they are members of the group. Assessing a situation in terms of preventing genocide, this kind of killing is a marker for intervention.

Second, Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group: such as starvation, the control of food supply and withholding food as punishment or as reward for compliance, for instance, in signing confiscatory treaties. As military historian John Grenier points out in his First Way of War:

For the first 200 years of our military heritage, then, Americans depended on arts of war that contemporary professional soldiers supposedly abhorred: razing and destroying enemy villages and fields; killing enemy women and children; raiding settlements for captives; intimidating and brutalizing enemy noncombatants; and assassinating enemy leaders. . . . In the frontier wars between 1607 and 1814, Americans forged two elements—unlimited war and irregular war—into their first way of war.xvii


Grenier argues that not only did this way of war continue throughout the 19th century in wars against the Indigenous nations, but continued in the 20th century and currently in counterinsurgent wars against peoples in Latin America, the Caribbean and Pacific, Southeast Asia, Middle and Western Asia and Africa.

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part: Forced removal of all the Indigenous nations east of the Mississippi to Indian Territory during the Jackson administration was a calculated policy intent on destroying those peoples ties to their original lands, as well as declaring Native people who did not remove to no longer be Muskogee, Sauk, Kickapoo, Choctaw, destroying the existence of up to half of each nation removed. Mandatory boarding schools, Allotment and Termination—all official government policies--also fall under this category of the crime of genocide. The forced removal and four year incarceration of the Navajo people resulted in the death of half their population.

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group: Famously, during the Termination Era, the US government administrated Indian Health Service made the top medical priority the sterilization of Indigenous women. In 1974, an independent study by one the few Native American physicians, Dr. Connie Pinkerton-Uri, Choctaw/Cherokee, found that one in four Native women had been sterilized without her consent. Pnkerton-Uri’s research indicated that the Indian Health Service had “singled out full-blooded Indian women for sterilization procedures.” At first denied by the Indian Health Service, two years later, a study by the U.S. General Accounting Office found that 4 of the 12 Indian Health Service regions sterilized 3,406 Native women without their permission between 1973 and 1976. The GAO found that 36 women under age 21 had been forcibly sterilized during this period despite a court-ordered moratorium on sterilizations of women younger than 21.

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group: Various governmental entities, mostly municipalities, counties, and states, routinely removed Native children from their families and put them up for adoption. In the Native resistance movements of the 1960s and 1970s, the demand to put a stop to the practice was codified in the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. However, the burden of enforcing the legislation lay with Tribal Government, but the legislation provided no financial resources for Native governments to establish infrastructure to retrieve children from the adoption industry, in which Indian babies were high in demand. Despite these barriers to enforcement, the worst abuses had been curbed over the following three decades. But, on June 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling drafted by Justice Samuel Alito, used provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) to say that a child, widely known as Baby Veronica, did not have to live with her biological Cherokee father. The high court’s decision paved the way for Matt and Melanie Capobianco, the adoptive parents, to ask the South Carolina Courts to have the child returned to them. The court gutted the purpose and intent of the Indian Child Welfare Act, missing the concept behind the ICWA, the protection of cultural resource and treasure that are Native children; it’s not about protecting so-called traditional or nuclear families. It’s about recognizing the prevalence of extended families and culture.xviii

So, why does the Genocide Convention matter? Native nations are still here and still vulnerable to genocidal policy. This isn’t just history that predates the 1948 Genocide Convention. But, the history is important and needs to be widely aired, included in public school texts and public service announcements. The Doctrine of Discovery is still law of the land. From the mid-fifteenth century to the mid-twentieth century, most of the non-European world was colonized under the Doctrine of Discovery, one of the first principles of international law Christian European monarchies promulgated to legitimize investigating, mapping, and claiming lands belonging to peoples outside Europe. It originated in a papal bull issued in 1455 that permitted the Portuguese monarchy to seize West Africa. Following Columbus’s infamous exploratory voyage in 1492, sponsored by the king and queen of the infant Spanish state, another papal bull extended similar permission to Spain. Disputes between the Portuguese and Spanish monarchies led to the papal-initiated Treaty of Tordesillas (1494), which, besides dividing the globe equally between the two Iberian empires, clarified that only non-Christian lands fell under the discovery doctrine.xix This doctrine on which all European states relied thus originated with the arbitrary and unilateral establishment of the Iberian monarchies’ exclusive rights under Christian canon law to colonize foreign peoples, and this right was later seized by other European monarchical colonizing projects. The French Republic used this legalistic instrument for its nineteenth- and twentieth-century settler colonialist projects, as did the newly independent United States when it continued the colonization of North America begun by the British.

In 1792, not long after the US founding, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson claimed that the Doctrine of Discovery developed by European states was international law applicable to the new US government as well. In 1823 the US Supreme Court issued its decision in Johnson v. McIntosh. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Marshall held that the Doctrine of Discovery had been an established principle of European law and of English law in effect in Britain’s North American colonies and was also the law of the United States. The Court defined the exclusive property rights that a European country acquired by dint of discovery: “Discovery gave title to the government, by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession.” Therefore, European and Euro-American “discoverers” had gained real-property rights in the lands of Indigenous peoples by merely planting a flag. Indigenous rights were, in the Court’s words, “in no instance, entirely disregarded; but were necessarily, to a considerable extent, impaired.” The court further held that Indigenous “rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations, were necessarily diminished.” Indigenous people could continue to live on the land, but title resided with the discovering power, the United States. The decision concluded that Native nations were “domestic, dependent nations.”

The Doctrine of Discovery is so taken for granted that it is rarely mentioned in historical or legal texts published in the Americas. The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples, which meets annually for two weeks, devoted its entire 2012 session to the doctrine.xx But few US citizens are aware of the precarity of the situation of Indigenous Peoples in the United States.

_______________


http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/162804


- See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/162804#sthash.uRC5InPe.dpuf

veya_victaous wrote:Because the Romans are Long dead
British were still Commiting Crimes agaisnt humanity into the 1980's

And Even the Roman's did Jack shit compared to the damage the English did,
Roman empire barely covered the second smallest continent and generally they conquered their neighbours.
The British travelled around the globe to rape and pilliage.
the British Enslaved More people and more land just in India than ALL of the roman's empire.

Roman Empire covered much of Europe, including areas that would become Portugal, Spain, Andorra, England, France, Monaco, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Italy, San Marino, Malta, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Hungary, Albania, Greece, Macedonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Armenia. It also included territory in the Middle East and Africa that later became Syria, Iraq, Cyprus, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco.

I know, I'm saying its not just British who invaded countries, but nothing said about these.

HoratioTarr wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

magica wrote:Why does everyone blame the British, never had anyone talked about the roman empire and what they did in Europe, Africa, Egypt etc.   Rome had an Empire, and enslaved thousands, no millions when they invaded their lands.

The only reason Emperor Hadrian had the wall  built wasn't to keep the English in, but to keep the Scots out, they couldn't fight them on their turf.  Also Romans tried for hundreds of years to take this country even Caesar failed.  It was only when Claudius become Emperor they did another surge to make him big infront of the people.  King Caratacus led his tribes for many years to stop the Romans taking the country, until he and his family were captured and taken to Rome in chains.  He was allowed to live his days there with his family, but was never allowed to return to Britain, or Albion as this country was called.  The Romans named this country Britannicus, now Britain, when they invaded.

We never learned about this in school, only how great the Romans were, and they were, but they still enslaved, executed and invaded all the countries, for their gratification. Yet Britain is hated for it.

Because you try and rewrite history to blame others and don't accept any blame yourself and The romans were throughly Fucked up at the end and England so far has escaped any sort of justice and refuses to even acknowledge the reparations is Owes others if it is ever to be considered civil.

like blackie blaming the people in Chains with no vote or choice
Over the Englishmen that made a fortune raping the new world.
even When the Aussies were free'd from the English Chains and Lashes, english lords fought tooth and nail to stop the aussie giving the Aboriginal back the land the English men had stole.

Reality is Until either England IS Rubble like Rome or Actually displays some civility and remorse and starts paying some reparations for it horrendus crimes against humanity, yes it deserves to be blamed and hated by any and every good peoples. it is rigth that we teach the Evil that was the British empire so We can Ensure such and evil is never allowed to rise again.

Without the Dutch and British there would be no Australia, as you know it now.  South America would not be the place it is today if not for the Spanish and Portuguese.   Just as Europe and Britain would not be the place it is now had the Romans not conquered us.    And then we have the Ottoman Empire, who conquered and occupied territories spanning 3 continents.  

Just who exactly do you think should be 'paid' for crimes that took place in the 1500s?   And how exactly?  

well like the Aussie (including Convict and new Migrant) currently pays reparation to the aboriginal in form a weekly allowance, higher educational scholarships, discounted (almost interest free) loans.

and most of the cirmes are 1800's not 1500's
which is another reason Brits get blamed they act like it is Old history when reality is that
Australia had no English until 1788
English lords were Still using old laws (as our consitution pretty much all inherit English Laws)
trying to keep stolen land and exploit the 'colonies' in the 1980's
in Australia it wasn't until 'Aboriginal Ghandi', Vincent Lingiari, in the 1970's that the British Lords were Finially forced give some of the land back.

Gather round people ill tell you a story
An eight year long story of power and pride
British Lord Vestey and Vincent Lingiari
Were opposite men on opposite sides

Vestey was fat with money and muscle
Beef was his business, broad was his door
Vincent was lean and spoke very little
He had no bank balance, hard dirt was his floor

From little things big things grow
From little things big things grow

Gurindji were working for nothing but rations
Where once they had gathered the wealth of the land
Daily the pressure got tighter and tighter
Gurindju decided they must make a stand

They picked up their swags and started off walking
At Wattie Creek they sat themselves down
Now it don't sound like much but it sure got tongues talking
Back at the homestead and then in the town

From little things big things grow
From little things big things grow

Vestey man said I'll double your wages
Eighteen quid a week you'll have in your hand
Vincent said uhuh we're not talking about wages
We're sitting right here till we get our land
Vestey man roared and Vestey man thundered
You don't stand the chance of a cinder in snow
Vince said if we fall others are rising

From little things big things grow
From little things big things grow

Then Vincent Lingiari boarded an aeroplane
Landed in Sydney, big city of lights
And daily he went round softly speaking his story
To all kinds of men from all walks of life

And Vincent sat down with big politicians
This affair they told him is a matter of state
Let us sort it out, your people are hungry
Vincent said no thanks, we know how to wait

From little things big things grow
From little things big things grow

Then Vincent Lingiari returned in an aeroplane
Back to his country once more to sit down
And he told his people let the stars keep on turning
We have friends in the south, in the cities and towns

Eight years went by, eight long years of waiting
Till one day a tall stranger appeared in the land
And he came with lawyers and he came with great ceremony
And through Vincent's fingers poured a handful of sand

From little things big things grow
From little things big things grow

That was the story of Vincent Lingiari
But this is the story of something much more
How power and privilege can not move a people
Who know where they stand and stand in the law

From little things big things grow

@HT
AND are you trying to prove my point? that the Brit spews Propoganda in the face of Fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires

Roman 1.93 million square miles

British 13.71 million square miles

Indian/Pakistan 2.1 million square miles
SO Again JUST India/Pakistan Exceeds the Complete Roman empire.

You cannot conclude that because the British empire was the largest and most successful and reached throughout the highest proportion of the world, that it must have been the worst, most brutal, most dictatorial, most militarily and powerfully oppressive regime against all the people under this said control...


Yes there were some displays of power and military might...


But... how can a tiny island like uk... with such a relatively small percentage of global population... ever be able to field so many people to so many different parts of the world at the same time so as to be able to have large enough military forces in each place to be able to take forcible control of the huge numbers of local people in each place...!?


It's simply impossible to have happened by force!!!

No tommy, the Fact is is wasn't the most Brutal that was the spainish

and actually pretty easy to do militarly when you are the only side with warships with long range cannon against spears and arrows. Literally can sail up the river on any major settlement (since most major settlements before plumbing were located on ocean connected rivers) and blow the locals to bits which you did multipule times through out asia.

it's not magic you had a technical advantage and proceed to use that to slaughter across the globe. The original Terrorists, your Massacres diswaded nations for opposing you, for fear of your exterme violence and merciless inhumanity.
If the Spainish Amarda had gone differently then things may have been differnet. but it would have just meant spain maintained the early dominance it had instead of losing it to England

veya_victaous wrote:@HT
AND are you trying to prove my point? that the Brit spews Propoganda in the face of Fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires

Roman   1.93 million square miles

British    13.71 million square miles

Indian/Pakistan 2.1  million square miles
SO Again JUST India/Pakistan Exceeds the Complete Roman empire.

I POINTED OUT months ago what a racist and xenophobic Euro-centric retard HT is,  when she fallaciously claimed that Australian and American indigenous "savages" should realise how much better off they were after the European invasions.. (And Didge jumped to her defence back then --  claiming such comments weren't racist..).

There are still a lot like that,  deliberately denying the real thefts, and both attempted and actual genocide by British, French, Spanish, German, Dutch and Portuguese "settlers" across the globe.

And that many of the follow-up government policies later on, were actually a continuation of the actions of their preceding "colonial masters";  (e.g. the 'Indian Wars' and broken treaties in North America, and the odious 'White Australia Policy' down here..).

AND I certainly won't forget HT's barbed jibe towards you a few months back, that all Aussies were descended from "scumbag" convicts or Aboriginal "savages".        

well the convicts came from the UK so odds are that they were scum bags, just not scummy enough for the army or artisoracy.
the biggest fools and greedy villians the world has ever seen, the fact the Fools murder for the villian's greed and pretend they are civil is laughable.
And Despite the British Propoganda, they so vainly repeat, world history cannot stomach such a blantent lie as to pretrend the Brits were anything other than theiving murderous scum that try today, like the honourless peoples they are, to avoid justice for their crimes.

Being British carries no crime, indeed it should be treated as a gift, if it was not for the brave exploits of our forefathers the world would be a much darker place today, one must never forget the gallantry of the men of our empire, from Gallipoli to El Alamein, Tobruk and of course the bravery of those who fought in the Far East to deny the Japanese empire a foot hold n that continent, perhaps these anti British racists would prefer a corner of their flag to be occupied by the rising sun, only it wouldn't be the corner if these evil exploits had been victorious.

Sadly today racism is just about the only thing Australia and some Australians are any good at, this minority hate the British and blame the British for all their woes, one can only conclude that they're sore losers, they also hate the multicultural world we live in, racism from some poorly informed Aussie subculture puts them at a distinct disadvantage and they know it, however that in itself is no excuse for such behaviour in a modern world and one must remember that "culture" is deemed an abusive term down under, and the only culture, flag and language they ever known, know, or are ever likely to know is ours,  they should be grateful for that fact, but no, they whines like a bitch about it.

We Brits might have been sea robbers and pirates, the fact is we were better at it than anyone else.

veya_victaous wrote:@HT
AND are you trying to prove my point? that the Brit spews Propoganda in the face of Fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires

Roman   1.93 million square miles

British    13.71 million square miles

Indian/Pakistan 2.1  million square miles
SO Again JUST India/Pakistan Exceeds the Complete Roman empire.

Yeah, I doubt the greatness of the British empire will ever be surpassed, wrap yourself in that flag and share our pride in it.

+1

veya_victaous wrote:@HT
AND are you trying to prove my point? that the Brit spews Propoganda in the face of Fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires

Roman   1.93 million square miles

British    13.71 million square miles

Indian/Pakistan 2.1  million square miles
SO Again JUST India/Pakistan Exceeds the Complete Roman empire.

No, Veya, just trying to put across some balance and perspective.

scrat wrote:Being British carries no crime, indeed it should be treated as a gift, if it was not for the brave exploits of our forefathers the world would be a much darker place today, one must never forget the gallantry of the men of our empire, from Gallipoli to El Alamein, Tobruk and of course the bravery of those who fought in the Far East to deny the Japanese empire a foot hold n that continent, perhaps these anti British racists would prefer a corner of their flag to be occupied by the rising sun, only it wouldn't be the corner if these evil exploits had been victorious.

Sadly today racism is just about the only thing Australia and some Australians are any good at, this minority hate the British and blame the British for all their woes, one can only conclude that they're sore losers, they also hate the multicultural world we live in, racism from some poorly informed Aussie subculture puts them at a distinct disadvantage and they know it, however that in itself is no excuse for such behaviour in a modern world and one must remember that "culture" is deemed an abusive term down under, and the only culture, flag and language they ever known, know, or are ever likely to know is ours,  they should be grateful for that fact, but no, they whines like a bitch about it.

We Brits might have been sea robbers and pirates, the fact is we were better at it than anyone else.

THE WAR IN THE PACIFIC was won by the USA,  backed by Commonwealth forces from Australia, New Zealand, India -- and a small number of Brit's who had thumbed their nowes at Montgomery and company and their bullshit -- and seconded themselves to Douglas MacCarthur's command..

IF it hadn't been for the Aussie and Indian governments,telling the British leadership to get fucked, a lot of Aussie and other commonwealth servicemen would have been caught up back in Africa, while their home countries were being attacked by the Jap's..

GET YOUR facts straight, before spouting your revisionist lies on here, Scrat  !!!

You fucking lying yellow-bellied piece of useless shite..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

scrat wrote:Being British carries no crime, indeed it should be treated as a gift, if it was not for the brave exploits of our forefathers the world would be a much darker place today, one must never forget the gallantry of the men of our empire, from Gallipoli to El Alamein, Tobruk and of course the bravery of those who fought in the Far East to deny the Japanese empire a foot hold n that continent, perhaps these anti British racists would prefer a corner of their flag to be occupied by the rising sun, only it wouldn't be the corner if these evil exploits had been victorious.

Sadly today racism is just about the only thing Australia and some Australians are any good at, this minority hate the British and blame the British for all their woes, one can only conclude that they're sore losers, they also hate the multicultural world we live in, racism from some poorly informed Aussie subculture puts them at a distinct disadvantage and they know it, however that in itself is no excuse for such behaviour in a modern world and one must remember that "culture" is deemed an abusive term down under, and the only culture, flag and language they ever known, know, or are ever likely to know is ours,  they should be grateful for that fact, but no, they whines like a bitch about it.

We Brits might have been sea robbers and pirates, the fact is we were better at it than anyone else.

THE WAR IN THE PACIFIC was won by the USA,  backed by Commonwealth forces from Australia, New Zealand, India -- and a small number of Brit's who had thumbed their nowes at Montgomery and company and their bullshit -- and seconded themselves to Douglas MacCarthur's command..

IF it hadn't been for the Aussie and Indian governments,telling the British leadership to get fucked, a lot of Aussie and other commonwealth servicemen would have been caught up back in Africa, while their home countries were being attacked by the Jap's..

GET YOUR facts straight, before spouting your revisionist lies on here, Scrat  !!!

You fucking lying yellow-bellied piece of useless shite..

Calm your worthless colonial tongue, you're nowt but a loser from a long line of losers, it must be awful knowing that us Brits are still so victorious in many ways and all you've ever done is lose and while you Aussies were running about bare foot in kangaroo hot pants prying witchetty grubs from logs, Blighty stood alone against the Hun.

You and your ilk dishonour your very own people with your disgusting anti British bile which is of little meaning and consequence in the real world, now put the bottle down and go find your own flag, your own culture, your own fucking language instead of sponging everything you are or ever will be off of us British.

scrat wrote:
Calm your worthless colonial tongue, you're nowt but a loser from a long line of losers, it must be awful knowing that us Brits are still so victorious in many ways and all you've ever done is lose and while you Aussies were running about bare foot in kangaroo hot pants prying witchetty grubs from logs, Blighty stood alone against the Hun.

You and your ilk dishonour your very own people with your disgusting anti British bile which is of little meaning and consequence in the real world, now put the bottle down and go find your own flag, your own culture, your own fucking language instead of sponging everything you are or ever will be off of us British.

Um...Brits?  Victorious?  Are you talking about that great war over that guano-covered penguin sanctuary in the South Atlantic?  Nice job...big guys!!


(I mean as long as we are passing out accolades.    )

scrat wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


THE WAR IN THE PACIFIC was won by the USA,  backed by Commonwealth forces from Australia, New Zealand, India -- and a small number of Brit's who had thumbed their nowes at Montgomery and company and their bullshit -- and seconded themselves to Douglas MacCarthur's command..

IF it hadn't been for the Aussie and Indian governments,telling the British leadership to get fucked, a lot of Aussie and other commonwealth servicemen would have been caught up back in Africa, while their home countries were being attacked by the Jap's..

GET YOUR facts straight, before spouting your revisionist lies on here, Scrat  !!!

You fucking lying yellow-bellied piece of useless shite..

Calm your worthless colonial tongue, you're nowt but a loser from a long line of losers, it must be awful knowing that us Brits are still so victorious in many ways and all you've ever done is lose and while you Aussies were running about bare foot in kangaroo hot pants prying witchetty grubs from logs, Blighty stood alone against the Hun.

You and your ilk dishonour your very own people with your disgusting anti British bile which is of little meaning and consequence in the real world, now put the bottle down and go find your own flag, your own culture, your own fucking language instead of sponging everything you are or ever will be off of us British.

"".. anti-British bile."   ?!?

You pathetic little two-faced turd..

I see nothing at all "anti-British" about criticising either the past sins of previous thieving and genocidal regimes, simply,to enrich your Royals and 'aristocracy' -- nor a small and pitiful handful of jumped up and spineless little grubs on here (i.e. you Scrat, Tommy, Major, Horatio...) over your arrogant and white-supremacist defence of both past. atrocities, and current xenophobic tendencies..

I RECKON there would be many people from a couple of dozen countries that sent forces to help Britain, France and your allied Euro' neighbours during both World Wars --  to see your idiotic claim on here today, that Britain stood alone and unaided against Germany  !        

Original Quill wrote:

scrat wrote:
Calm your worthless colonial tongue, you're nowt but a loser from a long line of losers, it must be awful knowing that us Brits are still so victorious in many ways and all you've ever done is lose and while you Aussies were running about bare foot in kangaroo hot pants prying witchetty grubs from logs, Blighty stood alone against the Hun.

You and your ilk dishonour your very own people with your disgusting anti British bile which is of little meaning and consequence in the real world, now put the bottle down and go find your own flag, your own culture, your own fucking language instead of sponging everything you are or ever will be off of us British.

Um...Brits?  Victorious?  Are you talking about that great war over that guano-covered penguin sanctuary in the South Atlantic?  Nice job...big guys!!


(I mean as long as we are passing out accolades.    )

Did you mean that in a Vietnam sort of sense, flying thousands of miles with the "state of the art warfare" and the biggest army of the mightiest nation on the planet, and then crawling back to septic land with your tail between your legs beaten into submission and defeated by a hand full of clever commies, no I didn't think so.

As far as I'm aware the white ensign still flutters majestically in the breeze off port Stanley, I would have sued for peace myself as I find war counterproductive now, but a battle between a mental far right junta and the well being of Maggie Thatchers husbands sheep was the order of the day, and that was that, once more we prevailed.

There seems to be this misunderstanding that British, predominantly English people should not be patriotic, that they should try to deny themselves such greatness but that's far to difficult an ask when you consider our history, we are fortunate to be bathed in the glory some nations can only dream of.

scrat wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Um...Brits?  Victorious?  Are you talking about that great war over that guano-covered penguin sanctuary in the South Atlantic?  Nice job...big guys!!


(I mean as long as we are passing out accolades.    )

Did you mean that in a Vietnam sort of sense, flying thousands of miles with the "state of the art warfare" and the biggest army of the mightiest nation on the planet, and then crawling back to septic land with your tail between your legs beaten into submission and defeated by a hand full of clever commies, no I didn't think so.

Exactly! That's precisely the kind of stupidity I'm talking about.

scrat wrote:As far as I'm aware the white ensign still flutters majestically in the breeze off port Stanley, I would have sued for peace myself as I find war counterproductive now, but a battle between a mental far right junta and the well being of Maggie Thatchers husbands sheep was the order of the day, and that was that, once more we prevailed.

It was a pissant, third-world nation, fur fucksake.  You could have dealt with them by sending them a letter with harsh language.  Lol.

scrat wrote:There seems to be this misunderstanding that British, predominantly English people should not be patriotic, that they should try to deny themselves such greatness but that's far to difficult an ask when you consider our history, we are fortunate to be bathed in the glory some nations can only dream of.

As one with a doctorate in the political history of Britain, you're preaching to the choir.  I've taught the subject at universities all over, including the University of London.  But on this site we have lots of fun back and forth...especially about that penguin sanctuary down south.  If we (the US) hadn't been supportive, y'all would never have gotten all that satellite intel we gave you to get the Hermes and Invincible and related RN ships down there.

Original Quill wrote:

scrat wrote:

Did you mean that in a Vietnam sort of sense, flying thousands of miles with the "state of the art warfare" and the biggest army of the mightiest nation on the planet, and then crawling back to septic land with your tail between your legs beaten into submission and defeated by a hand full of clever commies, no I didn't think so.

Exactly!

scrat wrote:As far as I'm aware the white ensign still flutters majestically in the breeze off port Stanley, I would have sued for peace myself as I find war counterproductive now, but a battle between a mental far right junta and the well being of Maggie Thatchers husbands sheep was the order of the day, and that was that, once more we prevailed.

It was a pissant, third-world nation, fur fucksake.  You could have dealt with them by sending them a letter with harsh language.  Lol.

scrat wrote:There seems to be this misunderstanding that British, predominantly English people should not be patriotic, that they should try to deny themselves such greatness but that's far to difficult an ask when you consider our history, we are fortunate to be bathed in the glory some nations can only dream of.

As one with a doctorate in the political history of Britain, you're preaching to the choir.  I've taught the subject at universities all over, including the University of London.  But on this site we have lots of fun back and forth...especially about that penguin sanctuary down south.  If we (the US) hadn't been supportive, y'all would never have gotten all that satellite intel we gave you to get the Hermes and Invincible and related RN ships down there.

A doctorate in political history, I see, well I lived in the states only the east coast, mostly the big apple and I didn't stay long enough to travel west of Pennsylvania, but I seem to recollect that you could purchase a doctorate in British political history with a packet of Kellogg's cornflakes, so unfortunately if you were trying to impress me, that part failed.

Also your regarding of Argentina armed with the latest French Exocet missiles and items of Israeli ordinance as a third world nation seems a tad misplaced, but as I've already made clear, I found the whole matter farcical although not quite as farcical as Vietnam.

Perhaps you should just concentrate your efforts on hating the British, rather than trying to persuade me of your "bona fide" doctorate.

veya_victaous wrote:Because the Romans are Long dead
British were still Commiting Crimes agaisnt humanity into the 1980's

And Even the Roman's did Jack shit compared to the damage the English did,
Roman empire barely covered the second smallest continent and generally they conquered their neighbours.
The British travelled around the globe to rape and pilliage.
the British Enslaved More people and more land just in India than ALL of the roman's empire.

True VV, we were the worst of the worst and yet we try to re-write our past now as if it didn't happen
Our ancestors were right ba*tards in reality

blackie333 wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Because the Romans are Long dead
British were still Commiting Crimes agaisnt humanity into the 1980's

And Even the Roman's did Jack shit compared to the damage the English did,
Roman empire barely covered the second smallest continent and generally they conquered their neighbours.
The British travelled around the globe to rape and pilliage.
the British Enslaved More people and more land just in India than ALL of the roman's empire.

True VV, we were the worst of the worst and yet we try to re-write our past now as if it didn't happen
Our ancestors were right ba*tards in reality

They were simply the best, better than all the rest, better than anyone!

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:@HT
AND are you trying to prove my point? that the Brit spews Propoganda in the face of Fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires

Roman   1.93 million square miles

British    13.71 million square miles

Indian/Pakistan 2.1  million square miles
SO Again JUST India/Pakistan Exceeds the Complete Roman empire.

I POINTED OUT months ago what a racist and xenophobic Euro-centric retard HT is,  when she fallaciously claimed that Australian and American indigenous "savages" should realise how much better off they were after the European invasions.. (And Didge jumped to her defence back then --  claiming such comments weren't racist..).

There are still a lot like that,  deliberately denying the real thefts, and both attempted and actual genocide by British, French, Spanish, German, Dutch and Portuguese "settlers" across the globe.

And that many of the follow-up government policies later on, were actually a continuation of the actions of their preceding "colonial masters";  (e.g. the 'Indian Wars' and broken treaties in North America, and the odious 'White Australia Policy' down here..).

AND I certainly won't forget HT's barbed jibe towards you a few months back, that all Aussies were descended from "scumbag" convicts or Aboriginal "savages".        

You seem to have a fixation with me.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

scrat wrote:
Calm your worthless colonial tongue, you're nowt but a loser from a long line of losers, it must be awful knowing that us Brits are still so victorious in many ways and all you've ever done is lose and while you Aussies were running about bare foot in kangaroo hot pants prying witchetty grubs from logs, Blighty stood alone against the Hun.

You and your ilk dishonour your very own people with your disgusting anti British bile which is of little meaning and consequence in the real world, now put the bottle down and go find your own flag, your own culture, your own fucking language instead of sponging everything you are or ever will be off of us British.

"".. anti-British bile."   ?!?

You pathetic little two-faced turd..

I see nothing at all "anti-British" about criticising either the past sins of previous thieving and genocidal regimes, simply,to enrich your Royals and 'aristocracy' -- nor a small and pitiful handful of jumped up and spineless little grubs on here (i.e. you Scrat, Tommy, Major, Horatio...) over your arrogant and white-supremacist defence of both past. atrocities, and current xenophobic tendencies..

I RECKON there would be many people from a couple of dozen countries that sent forces to help Britain, France and your allied Euro' neighbours during both World Wars --  to see your idiotic claim on here today, that Britain stood alone and unaided against Germany  !        

Are there any posts you make where you don't roll my name off your tongue like a lover's caress?

scrat wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Exactly!



It was a pissant, third-world nation, fur fucksake.  You could have dealt with them by sending them a letter with harsh language.  Lol.



As one with a doctorate in the political history of Britain, you're preaching to the choir.  I've taught the subject at universities all over, including the University of London.  But on this site we have lots of fun back and forth...especially about that penguin sanctuary down south.  If we (the US) hadn't been supportive, y'all would never have gotten all that satellite intel we gave you to get the Hermes and Invincible and related RN ships down there.

A doctorate in political history, I see, well I lived in the states only the east coast, mostly the big apple and I didn't stay long enough to travel west of Pennsylvania, but I seem to recollect that you could purchase a doctorate in British political history with a packet of Kellogg's cornflakes, so unfortunately if you were trying to impress me, that part failed.

Why would I try to impress you?  I've never met you.  There's no money in it for me.  My doctorate is from an accredited school, and if you've lived in NYC you've heard of Rutgers University.  You were about to lecture us about British history, and I was merely telling you don't bother!  There's nothing I could learn from you about British history.

scrat wrote:Also your regarding of Argentina armed with the latest French Exocet missiles and items of Israeli ordinance as a third world nation seems a tad misplaced, but as I've already made clear, I found the whole matter farcical although not quite as farcical as Vietnam.

Yes, the exocet anti-ship missile was a concern.  I've always wondered why you guys didn't just bomb the shit out of BA.  But, meh...I just watched with mild bemusement.

scrat wrote:Perhaps you should just concentrate your efforts on hating the British, rather than trying to persuade me of your "bona fide" doctorate.

Ah yes, the British arrogance turns into indignation when challenged...it's inevitable.  Sign of a weak personality.  

I don't know why you guys can't just take it like you give it out.  Weren't you just belittling an Aussie for his colonial status?  I'm just jabbing you for your 'has been' status.  

HoratioTarr wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


"".. anti-British bile."   ?!?

You pathetic little two-faced turd..

I see nothing at all "anti-British" about criticising either the past sins of previous thieving and genocidal regimes, simply,to enrich your Royals and 'aristocracy' -- nor a small and pitiful handful of jumped up and spineless little grubs on here (i.e. you Scrat, Tommy, Major, Horatio...) over your arrogant and white-supremacist defence of both past. atrocities, and current xenophobic tendencies..

I RECKON there would be many people from a couple of dozen countries that sent forces to help Britain, France and your allied Euro' neighbours during both World Wars --  to see your idiotic claim on here today, that Britain stood alone and unaided against Germany  !        

Are there any posts you make where you don't roll my name off your tongue like a lover's caress?  

Stop teasing the women with that silver tongue of yours HT.
I got in first so you can bugger off kid

blackie333 wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Are there any posts you make where you don't roll my name off your tongue like a lover's caress?  

Stop teasing the women with that silver tongue of yours HT.
I got in first so you can bugger off kid

Yeah, I know Wolfie's a big soft girlie. She's all yours, BD.

Original Quill wrote:

scrat wrote:
A doctorate in political history, I see, well I lived in the states only the east coast, mostly the big apple and I didn't stay long enough to travel west of Pennsylvania, but I seem to recollect that you could purchase a doctorate in British political history with a packet of Kellogg's cornflakes, so unfortunately if you were trying to impress me, that part failed.

Why would I try to impress you?  I've never met you.  There's no money in it for me.  My doctorate is from an accredited school, and if you've lived in NYC you've heard of Rutgers University.  You were about to lecture us about British history, and I was merely telling you don't bother!  There's nothing I could learn from you about British history.

scrat wrote:Also your regarding of Argentina armed with the latest French Exocet missiles and items of Israeli ordinance as a third world nation seems a tad misplaced, but as I've already made clear, I found the whole matter farcical although not quite as farcical as Vietnam.

Yes, the exocet anti-ship missile was a concern.  I've always wondered why you guys didn't just bomb the shit out of BA.  But, meh...I just watched with mild bemusement.

scrat wrote:Perhaps you should just concentrate your efforts on hating the British, rather than trying to persuade me of your "bona fide" doctorate.

Ah yes, the British arrogance turns into indignation when challenged...it's inevitable.  Sign of a weak personality.  

I don't know why you guys can't just take it like you give it out.  Weren't you just belittling an Aussie for his colonial status?  I'm just jabbing you for your 'has been' status.  

Thankfully I'm not interested in what you claim to be, I can see by your replies that you've no understanding on the matter whatsoever, otherwise you would've avoided the Vietnam trap and the third world Argentina faux pas, so what ever doctorate you claim to have, it ain't worth the paper it's written on, and as for your whine regarding my arrogance, of course I'm arrogant I'm British and thus I have every right to be arrogant.

scrat wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Why would I try to impress you?  I've never met you.  There's no money in it for me.  My doctorate is from an accredited school, and if you've lived in NYC you've heard of Rutgers University.  You were about to lecture us about British history, and I was merely telling you don't bother!  There's nothing I could learn from you about British history.



Yes, the exocet anti-ship missile was a concern.  I've always wondered why you guys didn't just bomb the shit out of BA.  But, meh...I just watched with mild bemusement.



Ah yes, the British arrogance turns into indignation when challenged...it's inevitable.  Sign of a weak personality.  

I don't know why you guys can't just take it like you give it out.  Weren't you just belittling an Aussie for his colonial status?  I'm just jabbing you for your 'has been' status.  

Thankfully I'm not interested in what you claim to be, I can see by your replies that you've no understanding on the matter whatsoever, otherwise you would've avoided the Vietnam trap and the third world Argentina faux pas, so what ever doctorate you claim to have, it ain't worth the paper it's written on, and as for your whine regarding my arrogance, of course I'm arrogant I'm British and thus I have every right to be arrogant.

Wow, you're a noisy little turd...but finally, someone who speaks the truth.  Yes, the British are the most chauvinistic people on earth.  If you ever can't sleep at night, turn on the BBC or Sky.  

As I say, there's nothing I could learn from you, so I was just trying to shut you up before you went on some boring exegesis that you learned in grade school.  

But I am curious, what was this clever trap that you were laying?  Argentina or Vietnam...or some bullshit or other?  They are both left over from either Nixon's or Thatcher's imperialistic imaginings. Tell us...

scrat wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

scrat wrote:Being British carries no crime, indeed it should be treated as a gift, if it was not for the brave exploits of our forefathers the world would be a much darker place today, one must never forget the gallantry of the men of our empire, from Gallipoli to El Alamein, Tobruk and of course the bravery of those who fought in the Far East to deny the Japanese empire a foot hold n that continent, perhaps these anti British racists would prefer a corner of their flag to be occupied by the rising sun, only it wouldn't be the corner if these evil exploits had been victorious.

Sadly today racism is just about the only thing Australia and some Australians are any good at, this minority hate the British and blame the British for all their woes, one can only conclude that they're sore losers, they also hate the multicultural world we live in, racism from some poorly informed Aussie subculture puts them at a distinct disadvantage and they know it, however that in itself is no excuse for such behaviour in a modern world and one must remember that "culture" is deemed an abusive term down under, and the only culture, flag and language they ever known, know, or are ever likely to know is ours,  they should be grateful for that fact, but no, they whines like a bitch about it.

We Brits might have been sea robbers and pirates, the fact is we were better at it than anyone else.

THE WAR IN THE PACIFIC was won by the USA,  backed by Commonwealth forces from Australia, New Zealand, India -- and a small number of Brit's who had thumbed their nowes at Montgomery and company and their bullshit -- and seconded themselves to Douglas MacCarthur's command..

IF it hadn't been for the Aussie and Indian governments,telling the British leadership to get fucked, a lot of Aussie and other commonwealth servicemen would have been caught up back in Africa, while their home countries were being attacked by the Jap's..

GET YOUR facts straight, before spouting your revisionist lies on here, Scrat  !!!

You fucking lying yellow-bellied piece of useless shite..

Calm your worthless colonial tongue, you're nowt but a loser from a long line of losers, it must be awful knowing that us Brits are still so victorious in many ways and all you've ever done is lose and while you Aussies were running about bare foot in kangaroo hot pants prying witchetty grubs from logs, Blighty stood alone against the Hun.

You and your ilk dishonour your very own people with your disgusting anti British bile which is of little meaning and consequence in the real world, now put the bottle down and go find your own flag, your own culture, your own fucking language instead of sponging everything you are or ever will be off of us British.

I dont understand the idea that Brits ever defeated germany? when? Only Brits ever suggest it (because it is not true)

the UK was about to be Conquered because it was too weak to defend itself from the Germans so All the colonials Even the USA had to come and save the day and the UK.
You'd be speaking German if it wasn't for the ANZACs and Americans... at least the French admit it.
And we did that While winning the war in the Pacific.

Both World Wars were lost by the Brit and won by the New World Nations
Sorry Your British Propoganda is laughed at out side of Britian cause it is make beleive.
YOU LOST, YOU GOT SAVED BY THE COLONIALS AND YANKS that all there is too it
you'd be under the Kaiser rule otherswise it's not even debatable it simply fact.

My brother visited London a decade ago or so and got to talking to some old guys at a pub, and he asked them what the British response was when they learned the Americans were entering the war against Germany. They said it was "Thank God."

blackie333 wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Are there any posts you make where you don't roll my name off your tongue like a lover's caress?  

Stop teasing the women with that silver tongue of yours HT.
I got in first so you can bugger off kid

YOU GOT us confused in that sentence, blackie...

Horatio is the old woman on here, and I'm the bloke !

Your sentence reads much better there with my name instead of that brainless old bigot H/T in it..

Ben, they also said, "Over Paid, Over Sexed and Over Here!!

veya_victaous wrote:

scrat wrote:
Calm your worthless colonial tongue, you're nowt but a loser from a long line of losers, it must be awful knowing that us Brits are still so victorious in many ways and all you've ever done is lose and while you Aussies were running about bare foot in kangaroo hot pants prying witchetty grubs from logs, Blighty stood alone against the Hun.

You and your ilk dishonour your very own people with your disgusting anti British bile which is of little meaning and consequence in the real world, now put the bottle down and go find your own flag, your own culture, your own fucking language instead of sponging everything you are or ever will be off of us British.

I dont understand the idea that Brits ever defeated germany? when? Only Brits ever suggest it (because it is not true)

the UK was about to be Conquered because it was too weak to defend itself from the Germans so All the colonials Even the USA had to come and save the day and the UK.
You'd be speaking German if it wasn't for the ANZACs and Americans... at least the French admit it.
And we did that While winning the war in the Pacific.

Both World Wars were lost by the Brit and won by the New World Nations
Sorry Your British Propoganda is laughed at out side of Britian cause it is make beleive.
YOU LOST, YOU GOT SAVED BY THE COLONIALS AND YANKS that all there is too it
you'd be under the Kaiser rule otherswise it's not even debatable it simply fact.

That's true as well, without the Yanks and Russians hep we'd have gone under the cosh by the bosh lol!

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

blackie333 wrote:

Stop teasing the women with that silver tongue of yours HT.
I got in first so you can bugger off kid

YOU GOT us confused in that sentence,  blackie...

Horatio is the old woman on here, and I'm the bloke !

Your sentence reads much better there with my name instead of that brainless old bigot H/T in it..

Horatio has got a bee in his bonnet with me for some reason babe and I wont stand for that for long
before I let fly and tell him to eff off.
I dont want to argue on here but if he keeps it up I will forget my manners and I wont care then.

Veya, you only came into the war because of Pearl Harbour. if not for that you would have not have joined in, and by fuck the help you gave us had to be paid for, and we have not long finished paying you back!

veya_victaous wrote:

scrat wrote:
Calm your worthless colonial tongue, you're nowt but a loser from a long line of losers, it must be awful knowing that us Brits are still so victorious in many ways and all you've ever done is lose and while you Aussies were running about bare foot in kangaroo hot pants prying witchetty grubs from logs, Blighty stood alone against the Hun.

You and your ilk dishonour your very own people with your disgusting anti British bile which is of little meaning and consequence in the real world, now put the bottle down and go find your own flag, your own culture, your own fucking language instead of sponging everything you are or ever will be off of us British.

I dont understand the idea that Brits ever defeated germany? when? Only Brits ever suggest it (because it is not true)

the UK was about to be Conquered because it was too weak to defend itself from the Germans so All the colonials Even the USA had to come and save the day and the UK.
You'd be speaking German if it wasn't for the ANZACs and Americans... at least the French admit it.
And we did that While winning the war in the Pacific.

Both World Wars were lost by the Brit and won by the New World Nations
Sorry Your British Propoganda is laughed at out side of Britian cause it is make beleive.
YOU LOST, YOU GOT SAVED BY THE COLONIALS AND YANKS that all there is too it
you'd be under the Kaiser rule otherswise it's not even debatable it simply fact.

It is rather enjoyable hearing the fury and the splattering of spittle when you curse us Brits in your mother tongue, most enjoyable.

Being British indicates we have a masterful grasp on irony, my favourite author is a Scot and when I hear anti British warbling from disgruntled colonists the world over,,,,I can't help but recall "trainspotting",,,,,,,

"It's SHITE being Australian! We're the lowest of the low. The scum of the fucking Earth! The most wretched, miserable, servile, pathetic trash that was ever shat into civilization. Some hate the English. I don't. They're just wankers. We, on the other hand, are COLONIZED by wankers. Can't even find a decent culture to be colonized BY. We're ruled by effete assholes. It's a SHITE state of affairs to be in, Tommy, and ALL the fresh air in the world won't make any fucking difference"

I replaced Scottish with Australian so you might grasp the irony as well as I do.

As to war, from Agincourt to Trafalgar to Waterloo, and on to Versailles and Nuremberg we remain the victors, and in September 39 when Europe collapsed under the might of Nazi Germany Blighty stood alone, and we defeated the Hun during the Battle of Britain September 1940, when Hitler was forced to abandon operation "sea lion" because our brave RAF chaps had hounded the Hun back to the shores of Nazi Europe, of course Montgomery had also inflicted a defeat on them in the battle for North Africa. "The end of the beginning"

And whilst you defame and dishonour your countrymen and women with your hatred for those who fought so gallantly to save the world from fascism, in the real world their heroism lives on.

It must be awful wrapping yourself up in such venomous bile, hating your flag, despising your culture, seething every time you're forced to communicate in English, but let's be honest here you really don't know any better.

NUREMBERG  !!!

Where you Brit's shared the table with the USA, Russia and France, with a few colonial rep's in attendance..

IF it wasn't for the combined efforts of the USA, a few dozen former colonies and Russia, Britain and France would still be part of a greater German empire  !

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


NUREMBERG  !!!

Where you Brit's shared the table with the USA, Russia and France, with a few colonial rep's in attendance..

IF it wasn't for the combined efforts of the USA, a few dozen former conlonies and Russia, Britain and France would still be part of a greater German empire  !

Perhaps in your ignorance you could try and turn that around in your mind and apply it thus, if it wasn't for Britain holding out against the odds as the Nazis blitzed London, fighting on alone for over two years before any assistance came the world would be a fascist nightmare and colonial ingrates and wasters like yourself would now be bleating in Japanese.

AND....

You Brits still have a German Royal family sitting on the throne over there..

Couldn't you manage to keep one of your own  ?        

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

AND....

You Brits still have a German Royal family sitting on the throne over there..

Couldn't you manage to keep one of your own  ?        

Yep, your Queen and monarch can trace her lineage back over a thousand years, and you must remember that us English are Germanic.

Perhaps instead of your schools teaching you how to lose to us at sport, they should teach you a little of your history and purpose as an outpost and trading spot in the southern seas.

Ben Reilly wrote:My brother visited London a decade ago or so and got to talking to some old guys at a pub, and he asked them what the British response was when they learned the Americans were entering the war against Germany. They said it was "Thank God."

Shush. They are all competing in "Which country has the biggest cock".
I want to know who wins.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:My brother visited London a decade ago or so and got to talking to some old guys at a pub, and he asked them what the British response was when they learned the Americans were entering the war against Germany. They said it was "Thank God."

Shush.  They are all competing in "Which country has the biggest cock".
I want to know who wins.

I've run out of popcorn...just nipping out for some more.

Australia has the biggest cock and the second biggest too...


Veya and Wolf boy!!!

nicko wrote:Veya,   you only came into the war because of Pearl Harbour.   if not for that you would have not have joined in,    and by fuck the help you gave us had to be paid for,  and we have not long finished paying you back!

The war in the Pacific was initiated by the attack on Pearl Harbor, which occurred on December 7, 1941.  Imperial Japanese expansion was not technically "Pacific" until then, as it was limited to the Sino-Japanese conflict:

Wiki wrote:It is generally considered that the Pacific War began on 7/8 December 1941, on which date Japan invaded Thailand and attacked the British possessions of Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong as well as the United States military bases in Hawaii, Wake Island, Guam and the Philippines. Some historians contend that the conflict in Asia can be dated back to 7 July 1937 with the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War between the Empire of Japan and the Republic of China, or possibly 19 September 1931, beginning with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. However, it is more widely accepted that the Pacific War itself started in early December 1941, with the Sino-Japanese War then becoming part of it as a theater of the greater World War II.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War

The Sino-Japanese war was fought in Manchuria and China until December, 1941, at which point it became a trans-Pacific affair.  Australia became involved at the same time as everyone else, except of course the Republic of China.

Britain did fuck all to win the Pacific War.  The US Fifth Fleet and Seventh Fleet did most of the fighting.  The Empire of Japan lost the war six months after it started, at the battle of Midway (June 4 - 7, 1942), when three carriers of the United States Pacific Fleet sank four of the six Japanese carriers that attacked Pearl Harbor.  The rest was kicking ass and taking numbers.

scrat wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

AND....

You Brits still have a German Royal family sitting on the throne over there..

Couldn't you manage to keep one of your own  ?        

Yep, your Queen and monarch can trace her lineage back over a thousand years, and you must remember that us English are Germanic.

Perhaps instead of your schools teaching you how to lose to us at sport, they should teach you a little of your history and purpose as an outpost and trading spot in the southern seas.

Like how your thousand- year monarchy really started with the death of Henry I in 1135, who only had a daughter survive him, Empress Matilda, when Salic law prohibited women from inheriting or passing on the throne?  So that makes Henry II the first usurper.

Then there’s the Battle of Bosworth Field, August, 1485.  The last of the Plantagenets, Richard III, died at Bosworth, and the Earl of Richmond (Henry VII) had fuck all claim to the throne.  His mother was a great-granddaughter out of the bastard line (Beaufort) of John of Gaunt (with Katheryn Swynford), and had no standing in the succession.  True, John of Gaunt later married Swynford and petitioned Richard II to legitimize the line, but Henry IV then later nullified that portion and said that his bastard progeny specifically could not inherit the throne (of course, because they competed with the Lancaster line).

Then you have the issue of the succession of the daughters of Henry VIII, again a violation of Salic law.  Henry did not divorce either of their mothers, but rather had the marriages annulled by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer.  Annulment leaves the children, Mary and Elizabeth, as bastards.  Again, bastards interrupted the line.

Then you have the discontinuity of the Stuarts.  The real line should have gone to Mary (Stewart) Queen of Scots, granddaughter of Margaret Tudur.  But Mary was disallowed by Elizabeth, who then committed regicide of her.  So, if Mary Stewart wasn’t Queen, how come her son James VI of Scotland, takes the throne as James I of England?

And, whatever happened to James II and the Stuart line, anyway?  Would that be the discontinuity of 1688, when the line went to the Prince of Orange for no reason other than his religion?  Isn't a Dutch king in the mix a bit of a discontinuity?

Then the line skips over to James I’s beautiful daughter, Elizabeth, whose daughter Sophia does not inherit, but instead becomes elector!  She elects George Lewis Hanover, who becomes George I.  Finally, a German ffs.

Back "over a thousand years".  Psshaw…

One would of thought that someone who claims a doctorate should know this,,,,never ever believe a septic claiming to be educated, their standard of education is one of the poorest in the world Zimbabwe's is far higher, a merkin education wouldn't cover our preschool.

The British royal house traces itself back to William, who took the throne by conquest, but Elizabeth is also descended from Harold Godwinson, the last crowned Saxon king, who died fighting William at the Battle of Hastings, and himself a descendant (probably 6 x great grandson) of Ethelred I, elder brother of Alfred the Great and grandson of Egbert of Wessex (see Godwin family tree). Harold's daughter Gytha escaped after the conquest and married Vladimir II Monomakh of Kievan Rus', thus preserving the Godwin bloodline. This line rejoins William the Conqueror's bloodline with King Edward III.

scrat wrote:One would of thought that someone who claims a doctorate should know this,,,,never ever believe a septic claiming to be educated, their standard of education is one of the poorest in the world Zimbabwe's is far higher, a merkin education wouldn't cover our preschool.

The British royal house traces itself back to William, who took the throne by conquest, but Elizabeth is also descended from Harold Godwinson, the last crowned Saxon king, who died fighting William at the Battle of Hastings, and himself a descendant (probably 6 x great grandson) of Ethelred I, elder brother of Alfred the Great and grandson of Egbert of Wessex (see Godwin family tree). Harold's daughter Gytha escaped after the conquest and married Vladimir II Monomakh of Kievan Rus', thus preserving the Godwin bloodline. This line rejoins William the Conqueror's bloodline with King Edward III.

Elizabeth was a bastard child of a king. Whatever her lineage, she was not legitimate. Nor was Mary. The marriages of both of their mothers were annulled...nada, zilch, didn't exist.

If you concerned yourself with history as much as you concern yourself with my credentials, you would know that. Hit the books!

Original Quill wrote:

scrat wrote:One would of thought that someone who claims a doctorate should know this,,,,never ever believe a septic claiming to be educated, their standard of education is one of the poorest in the world Zimbabwe's is far higher, a merkin education wouldn't cover our preschool.

The British royal house traces itself back to William, who took the throne by conquest, but Elizabeth is also descended from Harold Godwinson, the last crowned Saxon king, who died fighting William at the Battle of Hastings, and himself a descendant (probably 6 x great grandson) of Ethelred I, elder brother of Alfred the Great and grandson of Egbert of Wessex (see Godwin family tree). Harold's daughter Gytha escaped after the conquest and married Vladimir II Monomakh of Kievan Rus', thus preserving the Godwin bloodline. This line rejoins William the Conqueror's bloodline with King Edward III.

Elizabeth was a bastard child of a king.  Whatever her lineage, she was not legitimate.  Nor was Mary.  The marriages of both of their mothers were annulled...nada, zilch, didn't exist.  

If you concerned yourself with history as much as you concern yourself with my credentials, you would know that.  Hit the books!

I don't doubt your credentials, like I said they're not worth the paper they're written on and can be purchased with a packet of cornflakes.

You might of got away with your (I'll be kind),,,,inadequacies,,,when dealing with fellow septics because and let's be honest here they're as thick as pig shit, you won't however get away with it with me because I'm classically educated, now I can teach you but like all good things in life, I'll have to charge.

scrat wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Elizabeth was a bastard child of a king.  Whatever her lineage, she was not legitimate.  Nor was Mary.  The marriages of both of their mothers were annulled...nada, zilch, didn't exist.  

If you concerned yourself with history as much as you concern yourself with my credentials, you would know that.  Hit the books!

I don't doubt your credentials, like I said they're not worth the paper they're written on and can be purchased with a packet of cornflakes.

You might of got away with your (I'll be kind),,,,inadequacies,,,when dealing with fellow septics because and let's be honest here they're as thick as pig shit, you won't however get away with it with me because I'm classically educated, now I can teach you but like all good things in life, I'll have to charge.

So then you are folding and admitting I'm right about the less than a thousand year history of the British monarchy. Pleasant discussion...I'm off.

Ta...