In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

by Guest Tue Sep 16, 2014 6:22 pm

Between 1709 and the mid-19th century the East India Company helped expand international trade, nurtured the City of London and propelled the Industrial Revolution and British prosperity. Yet the Company has come to represent the exploitation and plunder of both the human and economic resources of the Indian subcontinent. Riddled with crony capitalism, the Company suffered an ignominious end, yet its legacy needs re-evaluating.

Last week at the Legatum Institute, as part of our History of Capitalism series, Professor Huw Bowen of Swansea University delved into the inner workings of the Company. Placing it in the context of its own time, he illustrated how it opened an entire sub-continent to economic and political development, with huge ramifications for India, Britain, and the world.

For many, the East India Company is seen as a rapacious extension of the British state, even at the time it was described as a ‘crew of monsters’ by Horace Walpole, yet this simplistic conclusion is false. The Company’s nature evolved dramatically from 1709 when the newly consolidated ‘United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies’ emerged, to when the company was disbanded in 1874.

Initially few in the Company had territorial ambitions and at first it maintained small outposts in Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. It was from these outposts that imports of Indian textiles and Chinese tea made their way to Britain. This trade contributed to the development of the domestic manufacturing sector, while the urban wage-earning class in Britain helped stimulate demand for foreign products. In this respect the Company contributed to the Industrial Revolution – Edmund Burke even suggested that the fortunes of the Company and the country moved in lock-step.

http://www.historytoday.com/blog/2014/09/good-company-re-evaluating-legacy-east-india-company

Interesting, but only paints one picture of the story.

by Ben Reilly Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:21 am

Yeah, I think we need to evaluate history with balance. Did the company open up trade, nurture England and help modernize the world? Yes. Was it power-mad, exploitative and at times astonishingly cruel? Yes! It was both. It would be easier to manage mentally if it was just one or the other, but hell, a balanced review of pretty much anything would show that there were positives and negatives.

by Fuzzy Zack Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:29 pm

A great study of direct vs indirect imperialism.

A strategy used by the US and its puppets (that includes the UK) even today. Such as in the Middle East, to control black gold.

And let's not start that bullshit again on how America and the West don't need Middle Eastern oil anymore. Yes it does. And any statement on how the US are producing enough oil to stop its dependence on ME oil just doesn't understand economics.

by Guest Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:00 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:A great study of direct vs indirect imperialism.

A strategy used by the US and its puppets (that includes the UK) even today. Such as in the Middle East, to control black gold.

And let's not start that bullshit again on how America and the West don't need Middle Eastern oil anymore. Yes it does. And any statement on how the US are producing enough oil to stop its dependence on ME oil just doesn't understand economics.

Oh why do you always diverge debates Zack, this was very one sided and missed the great harm it did to India, let alone the fact, the industrial Revolution got off the ground from abusing India, where no doubt it would have not been the Empire it became, to build such a vast and powerful Navy. This takes nothing away from the victories it did achieve though in later conflicts like the Napoleonic wars.

Again you are misguided over the Oil, America does not need the oil itself from the middle east, what it needs is a competitive market.

The U.S. will surpass Russia and Saudi Arabia as the world’s top oil producer by 2015, and be close to energy self-sufficiency in the next two decades, amid booming output from shale formations, the IEA said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-12/u-s-nears-energy-independence-by-2035-on-shale-boom-iea-says.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-04/u-s-seen-as-biggest-oil-producer-after-overtaking-saudi.html

by Fuzzy Zack Wed Sep 17, 2014 6:49 pm

Didge wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:A great study of direct vs indirect imperialism.

A strategy used by the US and its puppets (that includes the UK) even today. Such as in the Middle East, to control black gold.

And let's not start that bullshit again on how America and the West don't need Middle Eastern oil anymore. Yes it does. And any statement on how the US are producing enough oil to stop its dependence on ME oil just doesn't understand economics.

Oh why do you always diverge debates Zack, this was very one sided and missed the great harm it did to India, let alone the fact, the industrial Revolution got off the ground from abusing India, where no doubt it would have not been the Empire it became, to build such a vast and powerful Navy. This takes nothing away from the victories it did achieve though in later conflicts like the Napoleonic wars.

Again you are misguided over the Oil, America does not need the oil itself from the middle east, what it needs is a competitive market.

The U.S. will surpass Russia and Saudi Arabia as the world’s top oil producer by 2015, and be close to energy self-sufficiency in the next two decades, amid booming output from shale formations, the IEA said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-12/u-s-nears-energy-independence-by-2035-on-shale-boom-iea-says.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-04/u-s-seen-as-biggest-oil-producer-after-overtaking-saudi.html

Oil economics (as far as the US is concerned) is not just about how much oil the US needs for its demand.

This is where your ignorance starts.

What do you think happens to the US dollar when the oil price (and therefore oil production) varies?

That's why the US is dependent on oil. Not how much oil it needs but how much oil we all need (globally). The strength of the dollar is dependent on oil.

Lol!

by Guest Wed Sep 17, 2014 6:56 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Didge wrote:

Oh why do you always diverge debates Zack, this was very one sided and missed the great harm it did to India, let alone the fact, the industrial Revolution got off the ground from abusing India, where no doubt it would have not been the Empire it became, to build such a vast and powerful Navy. This takes nothing away from the victories it did achieve though in later conflicts like the Napoleonic wars.

Again you are misguided over the Oil, America does not need the oil itself from the middle east, what it needs is a competitive market.

The U.S. will surpass Russia and Saudi Arabia as the world’s top oil producer by 2015, and be close to energy self-sufficiency in the next two decades, amid booming output from shale formations, the IEA said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-12/u-s-nears-energy-independence-by-2035-on-shale-boom-iea-says.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-04/u-s-seen-as-biggest-oil-producer-after-overtaking-saudi.html

Oil economics (as far as the US is concerned) is not just about how much oil the US needs for its demand.

This is where your ignorance starts.

What do you think happens to the US dollar when the oil price (and therefore oil production) varies?

That's why the US is dependent on oil. Not how much oil it needs but how much oil we all need (globally). The strength of the dollar is dependent on oil.

Lol!

I will ignore the childish insult, so prey tell why the US has not then placed armed forces in both Libya and Nigeria, both with large oil fields, if it was about the demand for oil, where there is now insurrection going on with extremists?
You are buying poor Muslim conspiracies again, where again yes they want stability in the world market and the most delicate area which could throw this into an economic nightmare is the middle east, thus anyone with common sense would want to have this remain the status quo and not fall into the hands of such barbaric extremists.

by veya_victaous Thu Sep 18, 2014 12:33 am

ahh yes the Napoleonic War where Britannia So Fastidiously Fought Against Democracy and Freedom in order to maintain the established ruling class..... yeah 'good' Rolling Eyes

Yep the Guys that Bought poverty disease, suffering, and economic serfdom to half the world are now 're-evaluated' as good guys Rolling Eyes

by Guest Thu Sep 18, 2014 12:58 am

veya_victaous wrote:ahh yes the Napoleonic War where Britannia So Fastidiously Fought Against Democracy and Freedom in order to maintain the established ruling class..... yeah 'good'

Yep the Guys that Bought poverty disease, suffering, and economic serfdom to half the world are now 're-evaluated' as good guys

That made no utter sense, so now you are saying Napoleon was democratic as an Emperor?

://?roflmao?/:

Do you get anything right on history?

by veya_victaous Thu Sep 18, 2014 1:35 am

ENGLAND Fought for and Restored OLD privileges, taking away the Citizen Assembly (voting)

http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/government/Belgium/c_BelgiumRevolution.html

With the French driven from Belgium, many local officials and the Catholic Church desired a return of Austrian rule in hopes of having the traditional privileges restored. Metternich however, had abandoned the idea of restoring the Austrian Netherlands despite its past importance to Austria. Instead the Congress of Vienna confirmed the award of Belgium to the Kingdom of the Netherlands under King William I that had originally been granted by the 1814 Treaty of Paris.

Napoleon Established the basic legal code that allow democracy and freedom we know today
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code

The Napoleonic Code ‒ or Code Napoléon (the official name being the Code civil des Français) ‒ is the French civil code established under Napoléon I in 1804. The code forbade privileges based on birth, allowed freedom of religion, and specified that government jobs should go to the most qualified.[1]

It was drafted rapidly by a commission of four eminent jurists and entered into force on 21 March 1804.[1] The Code, with its stress on clearly written and accessible law, was a major step in replacing the previous patchwork of feudal laws. Historian Robert Holtman regards it as one of the few documents that have influenced the whole world.

ENGLAND fought against this, you know Wellington fighting to keep the rich privileges as birth rights....

Fuck me Didge do you know anything other that ridiculous British propaganda that can easily be show to bullshit based of reality.... your qualifications are obviously in some antiquated Propaganda of the British empire NOT actual History...

JUST BECAUSE ENGLISH DID IT DOES NOT MAKE IT GOOD
Like Most of what they did from the 1700's to the 1900's it is oppression, tyranny, fighting against democracy and freedom... Most people can honestly look a the English actions and say they were evil and on the Wrong side, If they were on the right one We would not have Elections and votes today since ENGLAND fought against these things long after they had been established in the USA and France by Better men like Washington and Napoleon.
IF the Redcoats won all their battle there would be no Democracy today Simple as that because they were the main enemy of the 2 revolutions that paved the way for it and the rest of the freedom we take for granted today...

So do you think? or just regurgitate propaganda... because it doesn't take much analysis to see who was fighting for change and who was fighting to maintain the privileges of feudal era.

by Guest Thu Sep 18, 2014 1:42 am

Hilarious, you said Britain fought against Democracy, when Napoleon was a self styled Emperor, so again, do you want to detract that absurd statement.
You are wierd Aussi that again knows nothing, so again, are you claiming France under Napoleon was Democratic?

Take your time

by veya_victaous Thu Sep 18, 2014 2:02 am

Napoleon was an Popularly Elected Emperor of a Republic fighting against Feudal Monarchies.

So In didges 'English are Bestest' version of history the fact that Napoleon's conquests over-through many Monarchs that held Absolute power based on a Hereditary 'god given' right to rule is bad?
the fact that the invasion and conquest of Spain is basically responsible for the end of the Spanish inquisition is bad? the same conquest that allowed the nations of South American that were being brutally suppressed under the Spanish Monarchy to up rise and gain their freedom is bad?
And of Course Wellington and redcoats are Heroes because they 'could have none of that' freedom and equality bullshit, so they Fought a campaign to re-establish the Old monarchy in Spain and allow the Spaniards to go and oppress the south American for a few more years before their Revolutions Fully successful.

So YES Britain did fight against democracy this it Proven beyond doubt by the fact that removed the citizen assemblies when ever they took territory off Napoleon.

by Guest Thu Sep 18, 2014 2:07 am

veya_victaous wrote:Napoleon was an Popularly Elected Emperor of a Republic fighting against Feudal Monarchies.

So In didges 'English are Bestest' version of history the fact that Napoleon's conquests over-through many Monarchs that held Absolute power based on a Hereditary 'god given' right to rule is bad?
the fact that the invasion and conquest of Spain is basically responsible for the end of the Spanish inquisition is bad? the same conquest that allowed the nations of South American that were being brutally suppressed under the Spanish Monarchy to up rise and gain their freedom is bad?
And of Course Wellington and redcoats are Heroes because they 'could have none of that' freedom and equality bullshit, so they Fought a campaign to re-establish the Old monarchy in Spain and allow the Spaniards to go and oppress the south American for a few more years before their Revolutions Fully successful.

So YES Britain did fight against democracy this it Proven beyond doubt by the fact that removed the citizen assemblies when ever they took territory off Napoleon.

Wrong again ha ha.

In the first Perspective, Dr. Charles J. Esdaile evaluates this dichotomy and points out that an increasingly critical line has come to dominate discussion of Napoleon among academics. Such criticism, he explains, tends to regard Napoleon's reforms as merely self-seving; that is, he did not implement reforms for the sake of revolutionary ideals, but rather followed such a course to benefit himself and the strength of the French state. Esdaile also argues that the continuous warfare that gripped Europe during Napoleon's reign was largely his fault, concluding that a lasting peace settlement could have been achieved if Napoleon had demonstrated more restraint and diplomatic skill. War was instead integral to Napoleon's rule, the result of a lust for glory that superseded any benevolence he may have felt for his subjects. Esdaile concludes that while characterizing Napoleon as a power-hungry tyrant may be going too far, he was certainly not an enlightened revolutionary. In the second Perspective, Dr. Michael V. Leggiere argues that Napoleon was an authoritarian who provided France with a form of enlightened despotism masked by a façade of democratic ideals. While he implemented innovative reforms for the benefit of the state, he simultaneously refused to ever accept the republican notion that sovereignty lies with the people.

It was not just Britain that fought against a power hungry ruler, of which Napoleon was, which you neglect at every turn, and was not even making a case about Britain but as usual your anti British sentiments are shinning through it seems, and he got his arse spanked by the British and the allies in the end

You are still very much a novice Veya, so again, was napoleon democratic?

Stop embarrassing yourself

by veya_victaous Thu Sep 18, 2014 2:31 am

In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company Alexis-de-tocqueville-scientist-quote-the-french-want-no-one-to-be

Was England Democratic AT ALL?????
Was Napoleon MORE democratic than England? YES!! without question Napoleon was more democratic and representative of today ideals of freedom and democracy than Anything being espoused in England at the time. As they were literally sending soliders to fight against anyone seeking to not live under a monarchy!

And Who were the English Allies? the Prussians and Russian Tsar... both known for the brutal repression of their people and fighting AGAINST democracy!!! GREAT COMPANY TO BE IN ENGLAND.

Again can you critically analyse information or just regurgitate the Patriotic Propaganda of the British Empire. Because even Your facts in support just show you were allied with Tyrants that oppressed their people, and this make you 'good'?

Even If Napoleon the Individual was not prefect he still fought to establish the very principals that we value as 'good and just' today.. It not like this is a one off either, exact same as the US revolution where again redcoats are the people fighting Against democracy and the establishment of the political social structures and ideals that make our freedom that we take for granted today.

Hindsight Makes it Clear that the BRITISH were WRONG to fight so hard and so long against the establishment of non-monarchy gov't and to persist in denying people the right of self determination by propping up and allying with Tyrants and oppressors.

the only one that should be embarrassed here is you who is saying that "it was Right to fight for the maintaining of Feudal monarchies" again just because England did does not make it good, if you can't accept the fact that YES England did fight very hard to try and stop the establishment of Democracy and the ideals that we associate with freedom today then you are lying to you're self and the rest of England might do that too, but the rest of the world does not see the British Actions through the same Roses coloured Patriotic Glasses.

by Guest Thu Sep 18, 2014 2:39 am

What a child, the debate was not on who is more democratic, but if he was democratic.

Try again, I shall look in tomorrow to see you have finally admitted you are wrong.

Learn some real history, this will help you.

Napoleon Bonaparte effectively ended the French Revolution in 1799. In that year, he assumed the title of first consul and became the virtual dictator of France. Like Adolf Hitler, Napoleon overwhelmed those who had put him in power under the misperception that they could control him. As first consul, Bonaparte concentrated more absolute power in his hands than any Bourbon monarch before him, even the great Louis XIV. Unlike Louis XIV, no institution existed in France whose authority Napoleon had to respect or whose power he could not eclipse.

Because Bonaparte created both the legislative and executive branches of the consulate and imperial governments, no national, representative body existed to check his power. Not only did Napoleon dictate the constitutions of the consulate and empire, but he packed the upper level of the French legislature—the Senate—with his supporters. As for traditional obstacles to centralized or "federal" power in France, the nobility and the Catholic Church had been broken during the Revolution.
Napoleon's domestic program cannot be categorized as that of an enlightened revolutionary, for he never believed in the revolutionary concept that sovereignty resided with the people. Nor can his domestic policies be likened to those of a power-hungry tyrant. Instead, Bonaparte provided France with a form of enlightened despotism masked by a façade of democratic ideals. France had missed out on the political ideology of enlightened despotism, which had been popular among the rulers of Prussia (Frederick II), Austria (Joseph II), to a lesser extent Russia (Catherine II), and a host of secondary states in the mid- to late 18th century. The key to understanding the ideology of enlightened despotism—as opposed to revolutionary ideology—is the concept that sovereign power resided only with the monarch and not with the people. Enlightened despotism should be viewed as an intense acceleration of absolute monarchy, which included the subjugation of traditional obstacles to the state's centralized power. Enlightened rulers served their subjects by passing reforms and streamlining government for the improvement of the state community as a whole.

http://arapahoe.littletonpublicschools.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=-KdU8E07nrA=

by veya_victaous Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:04 am

Didge wrote:What a child, the debate was not on who is more democratic, but if he was democratic.

Try again, I shall look in tomorrow to see you have finally admitted you are wrong.

Learn some real history, this will help you.

Napoleon Bonaparte effectively ended the French Revolution in 1799. In that year, he assumed the title of first consul and became the virtual dictator of France. Like Adolf Hitler, Napoleon overwhelmed those who had put him in power under the misperception that they could control him. As first consul, Bonaparte concentrated more absolute power in his hands than any Bourbon monarch before him, even the great Louis XIV. Unlike Louis XIV, no institution existed in France whose authority Napoleon had to respect or whose power he could not eclipse.

Because Bonaparte created both the legislative and executive branches of the consulate and imperial governments, no national, representative body existed to check his power. Not only did Napoleon dictate the constitutions of the consulate and empire, but he packed the upper level of the French legislature—the Senate—with his supporters. As for traditional obstacles to centralized or "federal" power in France, the nobility and the Catholic Church had been broken during the Revolution.
Napoleon's domestic program cannot be categorized as that of an enlightened revolutionary, for he never believed in the revolutionary concept that sovereignty resided with the people. Nor can his domestic policies be likened to those of a power-hungry tyrant. Instead, Bonaparte provided France with a form of enlightened despotism masked by a façade of democratic ideals. France had missed out on the political ideology of enlightened despotism, which had been popular among the rulers of Prussia (Frederick II), Austria (Joseph II), to a lesser extent Russia (Catherine II), and a host of secondary states in the mid- to late 18th century. The key to understanding the ideology of enlightened despotism—as opposed to revolutionary ideology—is the concept that sovereign power resided only with the monarch and not with the people. Enlightened despotism should be viewed as an intense acceleration of absolute monarchy, which included the subjugation of traditional obstacles to the state's centralized power. Enlightened rulers served their subjects by passing reforms and streamlining government for the improvement of the state community as a whole.

http://arapahoe.littletonpublicschools.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=-KdU8E07nrA=

No didge that is your very irrelevant point, since who was democratic back then? the USA Barely..

MINE is he was still vastly more inline with modern ideals than England and ESTABLISHED the principals that become the foundations of Modern Democracy and freedom.

Not a single fact in your quote changes the fact he used those powers to establish Separation of Church and state, the removal of Hereditary Privileges and establish Citizens assemblies... the precursors to modern democracy

by Guest Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:01 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Didge wrote:What a child, the debate was not on who is more democratic, but if he was democratic.

Try again, I shall look in tomorrow to see you have finally admitted you are wrong.

Learn some real history, this will help you.

Napoleon Bonaparte effectively ended the French Revolution in 1799. In that year, he assumed the title of first consul and became the virtual dictator of France. Like Adolf Hitler, Napoleon overwhelmed those who had put him in power under the misperception that they could control him. As first consul, Bonaparte concentrated more absolute power in his hands than any Bourbon monarch before him, even the great Louis XIV. Unlike Louis XIV, no institution existed in France whose authority Napoleon had to respect or whose power he could not eclipse.

Because Bonaparte created both the legislative and executive branches of the consulate and imperial governments, no national, representative body existed to check his power. Not only did Napoleon dictate the constitutions of the consulate and empire, but he packed the upper level of the French legislature—the Senate—with his supporters. As for traditional obstacles to centralized or "federal" power in France, the nobility and the Catholic Church had been broken during the Revolution.
Napoleon's domestic program cannot be categorized as that of an enlightened revolutionary, for he never believed in the revolutionary concept that sovereignty resided with the people. Nor can his domestic policies be likened to those of a power-hungry tyrant. Instead, Bonaparte provided France with a form of enlightened despotism masked by a façade of democratic ideals. France had missed out on the political ideology of enlightened despotism, which had been popular among the rulers of Prussia (Frederick II), Austria (Joseph II), to a lesser extent Russia (Catherine II), and a host of secondary states in the mid- to late 18th century. The key to understanding the ideology of enlightened despotism—as opposed to revolutionary ideology—is the concept that sovereign power resided only with the monarch and not with the people. Enlightened despotism should be viewed as an intense acceleration of absolute monarchy, which included the subjugation of traditional obstacles to the state's centralized power. Enlightened rulers served their subjects by passing reforms and streamlining government for the improvement of the state community as a whole.

http://arapahoe.littletonpublicschools.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=-KdU8E07nrA=

No didge that is your very irrelevant point, since who was democratic back then? the USA Barely..

MINE is he was still vastly more inline with modern ideals than England and ESTABLISHED the principals that become the foundations of Modern Democracy and freedom.

Not a single fact in your quote changes the fact he used those powers to establish Separation of Church and state, the removal of Hereditary Privileges and establish Citizens assemblies... the precursors to modern democracy

We are not going about the US, dear me, it beggars belief, where you claimed Britain, which was democratic at the time, with a Parliament and had one for quite sometime, though far removed from today, you claimed was attacking a Democratic nation ruled by Napoleon, which is absurd when he was a dictator, then self made Emperor, who reinstated slavery by the way.What he did in power has no relevance to your point you first made and basically you are trying to now claim where he was progressive in certain areas, without looking in further detail mind, this is somehow now democratic. Also were worse off under his policies as well.
You also claimed Britain was attacking freedom, well being as he subjugated many nations, I think you will find they were in places liberating, for example Spain.
Sorry that is nonsense to claim democratic and no points were made on what the did, showing you get so easily lost in what you first claimed.

by Fuzzy Zack Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:28 pm

Didge wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Oil economics (as far as the US is concerned) is not just about how much oil the US needs for its demand.

This is where your ignorance starts.

What do you think happens to the US dollar when the oil price (and therefore oil production) varies?

That's why the US is dependent on oil. Not how much oil it needs but how much oil we all need (globally). The strength of the dollar is dependent on oil.

Lol!

I will ignore the childish insult, so prey tell why the US has not then placed armed forces in both Libya and Nigeria, both with large oil fields, if it was about the demand for oil, where there is now insurrection going on with extremists?
You are buying poor Muslim conspiracies again, where again yes they want stability in the world market and the most delicate area which could throw this into an economic nightmare is the middle east, thus anyone with common sense would want to have this remain the status quo and not fall into the hands of such barbaric extremists.

Don't be a sensitive sissy again. I didn't insult you.

The affect of oil demand on the dollar is not a Muslim conspiracy. It's basic economics.

That's the point - and one you didn't get.

by Fuzzy Zack Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:43 pm

Not only did the British of those generations thought the 'darkies' were savages who had to be civilized.

They somehow in their sheer arrogance thought they were doing Indians a favour.

The same excuse the US are using to spread their democracy.

But then and now, both colonial empires wanted to rape the land of their resources for their own financial gain.

So let's not excuse the savagery of the British. Even if they may be your (great) grandparents. They were also ----. Just like the US are now.

Nice try 'white' washing history Didge.

by Fuzzy Zack Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:49 pm

For those interested in a real historian:

http://www.questia.com/library/1230991/india-in-bondage

by Fuzzy Zack Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:51 pm

“India was a far greater industrial and manufacturing nation than any in Europe or than any other in Asia. Her textile goods – the fine products of her looms, in cotton, wool, linen and silk – were famous over the civilized world; so were her exquisite jewelry and her precious stones cut in every lovely form; so were her pottery, porcelains, ceramics of every kind, quality, color and beautiful shape; so were her fine works in metal – iron, steel, silver and good. She had great architecture – equal in beauty to any in the world. She had great engineering works. She had great merchants, great businessmen, great bankers and financiers. Not only was she the greatest ship-building nation, but she had great commerce and trade by land and sea which extended to all known civilized countries. Such was the India which the British found when they came.

J.T. Sunderland

by Guest Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:53 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Not only did the British of those generations thought the 'darkies' were savages who had to be civilized.

They somehow in their sheer arrogance thought they were doing Indians a favour.

The same excuse the US are using to spread their democracy.

But then and now, both colonial empires wanted to rape the land of their resources for their own financial gain.

So let's not excuse the savagery of the British. Even if they may be your (great) grandparents. They were also ----. Just like the US are now.

Nice try 'white' washing history Didge.

WTF?

Not trying to white wash anything, and have always been very vocal against the colonial aspects of the British Empire, what planet are you on and where did I say otherwise here?
You might want to read back because Britain certainly exploited India to the full and have countless times stated the industrial revolution was due to the wealth plundered from India.
My Grandparents were Irish and Sicilian, so I understand very well how a nation was treated by the British, dear me, that was embarrassing on your part Zack to make such a poor observation, to no comment I made, maybe the point where I said this article was very one sided, being the fact it ignores how India was treated

You can take your foot out of your mouth now Zack lol

by Guest Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:54 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Didge wrote:

I will ignore the childish insult, so prey tell why the US has not then placed armed forces in both Libya and Nigeria, both with large oil fields, if it was about the demand for oil, where there is now insurrection going on with extremists?
You are buying poor Muslim conspiracies again, where again yes they want stability in the world market and the most delicate area which could throw this into an economic nightmare is the middle east, thus anyone with common sense would want to have this remain the status quo and not fall into the hands of such barbaric extremists.

Don't be a sensitive sissy again. I didn't insult you.

The affect of oil demand on the dollar is not a Muslim conspiracy. It's basic economics.

That's the point - and one you didn't get.

Really it seems you are just one conspiracy nut ball it seems, because as seen, has America gained anything from Iraq Oil or has China?

Take your time.

by Fuzzy Zack Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:57 pm

Didge wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:Not only did the British of those generations thought the 'darkies' were savages who had to be civilized.

They somehow in their sheer arrogance thought they were doing Indians a favour.

The same excuse the US are using to spread their democracy.

But then and now, both colonial empires wanted to rape the land of their resources for their own financial gain.

So let's not excuse the savagery of the British. Even if they may be your (great) grandparents. They were also ----. Just like the US are now.

Nice try 'white' washing history Didge.

WTF?

Not trying to white wash anything, and have always been very vocal against the colonial aspects of the British Empire, what planet are you on and where did I say otherwise here?
You might want to read back because Britain certainly exploited India to the full and have countless times stated the industrial revolution was due to the wealth plundered from India.
My Grandparents were Irish and Sicilian, so I understand very well how a nation was treated by the British, dear me, that was embarrassing on your part Zack to make such a poor observation, to no comment I made, maybe the point where I said this article was very one sided, being the fact it ignores how India was treated

You can take your foot out of your mouth now Zack lol

Bullshit. You were making excuses by the end of your OP.

It's the same excuse the US use today and their capitalism is just as savage.

by Guest Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:59 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Didge wrote:

WTF?

Not trying to white wash anything, and have always been very vocal against the colonial aspects of the British Empire, what planet are you on and where did I say otherwise here?
You might want to read back because Britain certainly exploited India to the full and have countless times stated the industrial revolution was due to the wealth plundered from India.
My Grandparents were Irish and Sicilian, so I understand very well how a nation was treated by the British, dear me, that was embarrassing on your part Zack to make such a poor observation, to no comment I made, maybe the point where I said this article was very one sided, being the fact it ignores how India was treated

You can take your foot out of your mouth now Zack lol

Bullshit. You were making excuses by the end of your OP.

It's the same excuse the US use today and their capitalism is just as savage.

Oh my, how funny, I am countering an absurd claim made about Napoleon being democratic, seriously, cannot you not even follow a thread.
I tell you what Eilzel is online ask him how many times I have debated against Scrat about how bad the British Empire was, then you can come back and apologise.

In your own time

by Fuzzy Zack Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:00 pm

Didge wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Don't be a sensitive sissy again. I didn't insult you.

The affect of oil demand on the dollar is not a Muslim conspiracy. It's basic economics.

That's the point - and one you didn't get.

Really it seems you are just one conspiracy nut ball it seems, because as seen, has America gained anything from Iraq Oil or has China?

Take your time.

Again, you're being divergent by asking other questions and avoiding mine.

Does global oil demand have an affect on the US dollar?

That's 2 times you have cowardly avoided the question. And we all know why. cheers

by Guest Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:02 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Didge wrote:

Really it seems you are just one conspiracy nut ball it seems, because as seen, has America gained anything from Iraq Oil or has China?

Take your time.

Again, you're being divergent by asking other questions and avoiding mine.

Does global oil demand have an affect on the US dollar?

That's 2 times you have cowardly avoided the question. And we all know why.

I already stated it does have an affect on all world currencies, but not that much, I mean the price of oil quadrupled from 2004 to 2007, yet this did not bring much harm to the economy of the US or its currency, it took the banks to do that with the recession a few years later, so your argument has fallen flatter than a pancake, now let see you address mine.

In your own time

by Fuzzy Zack Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:02 pm

Didge wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Bullshit. You were making excuses by the end of your OP.

It's the same excuse the US use today and their capitalism is just as savage.

Oh my, how funny, I am countering an absurd claim made about Napoleon being democratic, seriously, cannot you not even follow a thread.
I tell you what Eilzel is online ask him how many times I have debated against Scrat about how bad the British Empire was, then you can come back and apologise.

In your own time

Don't get sanctimonious. It's more annoying than your arrogance.

I was referring to your op.

by Fuzzy Zack Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:03 pm

Didge wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Again, you're being divergent by asking other questions and avoiding mine.

Does global oil demand have an affect on the US dollar?

That's 2 times you have cowardly avoided the question. And we all know why.

I already stated it does have an affect on all world currencies, but not that much, I mean the price of oil quadrupled from 2004 to 2007, yet this did not bring much harm to the economy of the US or its currency, it took the banks to do that with the recession a few years later, so your argument has fallen flatter than a pancake, now let see you address mine.

In your own time

On all world currencies? Which currency is oil sold in?

D'uh!

by Guest Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:06 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Didge wrote:

I already stated it does have an affect on all world currencies, but not that much, I mean the price of oil quadrupled from 2004 to 2007, yet this did not bring much harm to the economy of the US or its currency, it took the banks to do that with the recession a few years later, so your argument has fallen flatter than a pancake, now let see you address mine.

In your own time

On all world currencies? Which currency is oil sold in?

D'uh!

Now who is avoiding and you know now you have no argument, being as it affected the US very littlel, I suggest you look at the US dollar between those years and the you will have to eat humble pie or ask any economist who will tell you the same.
Thus you failed to answer my questions and thus your Muslim conspiracy has just fallen flat

by Guest Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:09 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Didge wrote:

Oh my, how funny, I am countering an absurd claim made about Napoleon being democratic, seriously, cannot you not even follow a thread.
I tell you what Eilzel is online ask him how many times I have debated against Scrat about how bad the British Empire was, then you can come back and apologise.

In your own time

Don't get sanctimonious. It's more annoying than your arrogance.

I was referring to your op.

And what did I say, that it was one sided?
Take your time

Not my fault I am able to rubbish your arguments so easily ha ha

So you cannot even eat humble pie.

by Eilzel Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:29 pm

Ok, I regretably just don't have time to be deeply involved in this debate right now. However, veya, revolutionary France may have set up the precedence of modern democracy, but Napoleon's dictatorship over Europe was not. Forcing your version of 'democracy' by the gun never works (as the west knows all too well today). Britain didn't fight against freedom, it fought against an expansionistic egotistical state which used its revolution as a justification to invade a continent. The monarchies of Europe were archaic but that gives them no more reason to be invade than we should say Brunei or Saudi today. As for UK, we had a limited democracy in the early nineteenth century and that developed in a much less bloody and turbulent way than that of France in the same period.

by veya_victaous Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:21 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Not only did the British of those generations thought the 'darkies' were savages who had to be civilized.

They somehow in their sheer arrogance thought they were doing Indians a favour.

The same excuse the US are using to spread their democracy.

But then and now, both colonial empires wanted to rape the land of their resources for their own financial gain.

So let's not excuse the savagery of the British. Even if they may be your (great) grandparents. They were also ----. Just like the US are now.

Nice try 'white' washing history Didge.

+ 100 bazillion

by veya_victaous Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:30 pm

Eilzel wrote:Ok, I regretably just don't have time to be deeply involved in this debate right now. However, veya, revolutionary France may have set up the precedence of modern democracy, but Napoleon's dictatorship over Europe was not. Forcing your version of 'democracy' by the gun never works (as the west knows all too well today). Britain didn't fight against freedom, it fought against an expansionistic egotistical state which used its revolution as a justification to invade a continent. The monarchies of Europe were archaic but that gives them no more reason to be invade than we should say Brunei or Saudi today. As for UK, we had a limited democracy in the early nineteenth century and that developed in a much less bloody and turbulent way than that of France in the same period.

except the British were in the process of invading India, Australia and China at the time Wink

after just losing the 13 colonies that became the USA
Sorry Les,
that White wash of history is BULLSHIT as Britain at the time was justifying Invading other nations for no other reason than It Could.
Fact remains with out the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars it is Unlikely the other European monarchies would have been over thrown, just like it is unlikely that the French revolution would have occurred if it hadn't been for the success of the American Revolution.

by Guest Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:17 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Ok, I regretably just don't have time to be deeply involved in this debate right now. However, veya, revolutionary France may have set up the precedence of modern democracy, but Napoleon's dictatorship over Europe was not. Forcing your version of 'democracy' by the gun never works (as the west knows all too well today). Britain didn't fight against freedom, it fought against an expansionistic egotistical state which used its revolution as a justification to invade a continent. The monarchies of Europe were archaic but that gives them no more reason to be invade than we should say Brunei or Saudi today. As for UK, we had a limited democracy in the early nineteenth century and that developed in a much less bloody and turbulent way than that of France in the same period.

except the British were in the process of invading India, Australia and China at the time
after just losing the 13 colonies that became the USA
Sorry Les,
that White wash of history is BULLSHIT as Britain at the time was justifying Invading other nations for no other reason than It Could.
Fact remains with out the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars it is Unlikely the other European monarchies would have been over thrown, just like it is unlikely that the French revolution would have occurred if it hadn't been for the success of the American Revolution.

For fuck sake, Eilzel is not even going on about any of this, but about the Napoleon, why do you always get so confused all the time and Eilzel never whitewashes any history.
Not once has myself or Eilzel denied wrongs done by Britain, one being its colonial conquests. You keep diverting about Britain, nearly as badly as Zack did earlier when he put his foot in his mouth, when all that has been replied to you was your complete and utter error claiming Britain was attacking a Democracy under Napoleon, which was complete nonsense.

The reality is you have little knowledge or understanding of history.

by Eilzel Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:44 am

Napoleon and France had a global empire too veya, albeit a smaller one, this wonderful French 'democracy' also built up a fairly massive empire throughout the 18th-20th centuries and committed their share of brutality. Empire was brutal whoever was at the top, but there is nothing wrong with addressing some of the good outcomes, in fact it would be PC nonesense of the highest order to simply claim it was only a bad thing.

And most of the monarchies of Europe survived Napoleon, in fact the legacy of the French nation-state, possibly the first of its kind, arguably helped push the unifications of Italy and Germany into nation-states with immemse power and one King. WW1 did far more to dispose of Europe's monarchies overall than Napoleon did. Though that doesn't mean I don't recognize the legacy of the Napoleonic code.

My argument however isn't the French legacy, it is your statement that Britain fought against freedom and democracy; which is just nonesense since Napoleon wasn't spreading anything like real democracy, he threatened invasion, we opposed him, every country in history would do the same.

by veya_victaous Fri Sep 19, 2014 2:08 am

@lez
It was the first step to freedom and Britain Opposed them, Britain definitely was not fighting for democracy or freedom.

And it is NOT just France
also the USA, Where they undeniably and very directly fought against freedom and Democracy.
Also India were despite this White wash OP Britain Invaded and basically enslaved millions of People.
Also Australia (the Eureka Stockade, Australia's Failed Revolution)
Also New Zealand where they eventually had to accept a truce with the Maori.

So Part of the Long and Vibrant History of BRITAIN fighting for the side that is NOT fighting for Freedom or democracy, and fighting for the side that is OPPRESSING and Enforcing Systematic Nepotism , religious Interference in the legal system(enforcing Christianity on locals peoples) while denying Any from of political representation to the local peoples.

My Point still stand 100%

by Guest Fri Sep 19, 2014 2:15 am

veya_victaous wrote:@lez
It was the first step to freedom and Britain Opposed them, Britain definitely was not fighting for democracy or freedom.

And it is NOT just France
also the USA, Where they undeniably and very directly fought against freedom and Democracy.
Also India were despite this White wash OP Britain Invaded and basically enslaved millions of People.
Also Australia (the Eureka Stockade, Australia's Failed Revolution)
Also New Zealand where they eventually had to accept a truce with the Maori.

So Part of the Long and Vibrant History of BRITAIN fighting for the side that is NOT fighting for Freedom or democracy, and fighting for the side that is OPPRESSING and Enforcing Systematic Nepotism , religious Interference in the legal system(enforcing Christianity on locals peoples) while denying Any from of political representation to the local peoples.

My Point still stand 100%

Your point is ignoring the facts and also side tracking from the threat of Napoleon.
The US was made up of Colonialists and natives, thus without colonialism, there would be no colonists to fight for their own freedom, thus showing how you fail to look logically at any given situation.
Your point in regards to Napoleon ignores many factors about the reality he had global ambitions, and to dominate, where it was his family that ruled throughout Europe and he was the cause of millions of deaths, due to his ambitions through war.
I fail to see how the fact again women had less rights under Napoleon, slavery was reintroduced in their colonies, where also America still had slavery, shows how far actually Britain was by this point not great in certain aspects but moving in the right direction, all of which you ignore. Your arguments are selective ignoring many fundamental areas where Britain was pioneering. Yes it certainly exploited nations, nobody denies this and all European nations were exploiting nations around the world, which shows you look at things only in black and white.

by veya_victaous Fri Sep 19, 2014 2:47 am

Didge wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Ok, I regretably just don't have time to be deeply involved in this debate right now. However, veya, revolutionary France may have set up the precedence of modern democracy, but Napoleon's dictatorship over Europe was not. Forcing your version of 'democracy' by the gun never works (as the west knows all too well today). Britain didn't fight against freedom, it fought against an expansionistic egotistical state which used its revolution as a justification to invade a continent. The monarchies of Europe were archaic but that gives them no more reason to be invade than we should say Brunei or Saudi today. As for UK, we had a limited democracy in the early nineteenth century and that developed in a much less bloody and turbulent way than that of France in the same period.

except the British were in the process of invading India, Australia and China at the time
after just losing the 13 colonies that became the USA
Sorry Les,
that White wash of history is BULLSHIT as Britain at the time was justifying Invading other nations for no other reason than It Could.
Fact remains with out the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars it is Unlikely the other European monarchies would have been over thrown, just like it is unlikely that the French revolution would have occurred if it hadn't been for the success of the American Revolution.

For fuck sake, Eilzel is not even going on about any of this, but about the Napoleon, why do you always get so confused all the time and Eilzel never whitewashes any history.
Not once has myself or Eilzel denied wrongs done by Britain, one being its colonial conquests. You keep diverting about Britain, nearly as badly as Zack did earlier when he put his foot in his mouth, when all that has been replied to you was your complete and utter error claiming Britain was attacking a Democracy under Napoleon, which was complete nonsense.

The reality is you have little knowledge or understanding of history.

Didge Your version of history is about as accurate as the KKK's
Keep Up your racist Mantra, regurgitating the propaganda of the British empire, seems your fellow Brits are happy to deny the reality that Britain was probably the Biggest obstacle to Freedom and Democracy still present in the modern world. Largely because your allies at the time, Tyrannical Tsars and such, have being over thrown by the now free people.

To Suggest Britain did NOT fight against Freedom and Democracy is WHITE WASHING history, So yes Les does white wash history too, probably because it is the white washed history he was taught in school from the purveyors of propaganda that are History majors tongue

What is the title of the thread? does it say Napoleon? NO because the POINT of the WHOLE thread is that BRITISH and the BRITISH EAST INDIA company in particular are actually the Biggest preventer of freedom on Democracy DESPITE the Absolute Rubbish Propaganda OP.

SO YOU FAIL TO EVEN REMEMBER YOUR OP.. You are fool and cant debate for crap you try and pull one point on an opponent while ignoring the millions of holes is your own Propaganda and then try and claim victory because of You One point that in no way actually affect the Debate..

The Debate is that the OP is LYING RUBBISH PROPAGANDA, I didn't post a thread about Napoleon You posted a thread about one of the Worst organisations in Human history trying to make them sound like Heroes when they LITERALLY fought tooth and nail their entire existence AGAINST everything we consider good and just today.

by Eilzel Fri Sep 19, 2014 4:42 am

I didn't say Britain fought for freedom veya, but that we weren't fighting against it either. Did France not have slaves? Did France not colonise and brutalise parts of Africa, Asia and the Caribbean? We fought a war against an aggressive, expansionist megalomaniac.

by veya_victaous Fri Sep 19, 2014 6:01 am

Eilzel wrote:I didn't say Britain fought for freedom veya, but that we weren't fighting against it either. Did France not have slaves? Did France not colonise and brutalise parts of Africa, Asia and the Caribbean? We fought a war against an aggressive, expansionist megalomaniac.

British were an aggressive, expansionist megalomaniac fighting against a aggressive, expansionist megalomaniac... while also fighting Against freedom everywhere the British existed.

by Guest Fri Sep 19, 2014 7:57 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Didge wrote:

For fuck sake, Eilzel is not even going on about any of this, but about the Napoleon, why do you always get so confused all the time and Eilzel never whitewashes any history.
Not once has myself or Eilzel denied wrongs done by Britain, one being its colonial conquests. You keep diverting about Britain, nearly as badly as Zack did earlier when he put his foot in his mouth, when all that has been replied to you was your complete and utter error claiming Britain was attacking a Democracy under Napoleon, which was complete nonsense.

The reality is you have little knowledge or understanding of history.

Didge Your version of history is about as accurate as the KKK's
Keep Up your racist Mantra, regurgitating the propaganda of the British empire, seems your fellow Brits are happy to deny the reality that Britain was probably the Biggest obstacle to Freedom and Democracy still present in the modern world. Largely because your allies at the time, Tyrannical Tsars and such, have being over thrown by the now free people.
Oh my, I have qualifications which I worked hard for all you did was plagiarize others views on the web, which is poor to say the least. Britain had democracy, had abolished slavery at this point whereas the US had not and Napoleon reinstated this, all of which you have ignored. Sometimes you form allies, like Russia, because of a greater threat as within only a few decades France and Britain were at war with Russia, proving again my point how you woefully only look at things in black and white, it is so bad, I would mark you with an F.

To Suggest Britain did NOT fight against Freedom and Democracy is WHITE WASHING history, So yes Les does white wash history too, probably because it is the white washed history he was taught in school from the purveyors of propaganda that are History majors
Incorrect again, because Napoleon did not represent freedom or Democracy, which is the argument here, nobody has denied where Britain subjugated people it was not freedom, of which you poorly ignore of course because we both know your argument from the start was utterly idiotic. Napoleon like many Military Geniuses yearned ultimate power of which he obtained within France an Empire, though at great cost to the people of France and other European nations, all of which you neglect. Now in this context, Britain not only resisted Napoleon expansion, but also protected and liberated nations he had annexed, again all of which you ignore. This is a debate you instigated off a complete fabricated view, where you feel France under a Dictator was freedom and Democracy, which is complete and utter horseshit

What is the title of the thread? does it say Napoleon? NO because the POINT of the WHOLE thread is that BRITISH and the BRITISH EAST INDIA company in particular are actually the Biggest preventer of freedom on Democracy DESPITE the Absolute Rubbish Propaganda OP.
Not arguing against the terrible fact Britain was against India, that is now you side tracking from the daft claim you made, and no where have I denied that the record of British rule in India was appalling, so again your argument has fallen as flat as a pancake

SO YOU FAIL TO EVEN REMEMBER YOUR OP.. You are fool and cant debate for crap you try and pull one point on an opponent while ignoring the millions of holes is your own Propaganda and then try and claim victory because of You One point that in no way actually affect the Debate..
Oh my, I failed at nothing and you are boring the pants off we your stupidity now, I suggest you grow up and stop acting like an idiot just because you have been shown up on your idiotic claim.

The Debate is that the OP is LYING RUBBISH PROPAGANDA, I didn't post a thread about Napoleon You posted a thread about one of the Worst organisations in Human history trying to make them sound like Heroes when they LITERALLY fought tooth and nail their entire existence AGAINST everything we consider good and just today.

I never denied the OP was rubbish, I said it was interesting and one sided, so again you look an even bigger dick ha ha, because this is some poor attempt to save some face on your part, make even more outlandish incorrect lies on things I never said, because your view on Napoleon was complete rubbish

by Fuzzy Zack Sat Sep 20, 2014 3:21 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:Not only did the British of those generations thought the 'darkies' were savages who had to be civilized.

They somehow in their sheer arrogance thought they were doing Indians a favour.

The same excuse the US are using to spread their democracy.

But then and now, both colonial empires wanted to rape the land of their resources for their own financial gain.

So let's not excuse the savagery of the British. Even if they may be your (great) grandparents. They were also ----. Just like the US are now.

Nice try 'white' washing history Didge.

+ 100 bazillion

by Eilzel Sat Sep 20, 2014 6:26 am

Honestly veya it sounds like you are just Britain bashing ;-)

Who was fighting for other peoples' freedom in the late 18th Century? No one. The French fought for their own freedom then invaded other nations while maintaining an empire and slavery - they were not modern democratic saints by any means. The Americans fought for their own freedom but remained slavers and expanded further into native territory. Your one sided crticism of Britain is rather clouding to be honest. You claim we fought against freedom, but no one fough for freedom at that time, other than their own (ie: France and USA). Our war with France was not anti-freedom, it was against an aggressive power which had forced its way across Europe.

by Guest Sat Sep 20, 2014 8:26 am

Eilzel wrote:Honestly veya it sounds like you are just Britain bashing ;-)

Who was fighting for other peoples' freedom in the late 18th Century? No one. The French fought for their own freedom then invaded other nations while maintaining an empire and slavery - they were not modern democratic saints by any means. The Americans fought for their own freedom but remained slavers and expanded further into native territory. Your one sided crticism of Britain is rather clouding to be honest. You claim we fought against freedom, but no one fough for freedom at that time, other than their own (ie: France and USA). Our war with France was not anti-freedom, it was against an aggressive power which had forced its way across Europe.

+ one hundred duooctogintillion

by veya_victaous Sun Sep 21, 2014 5:18 am

Eilzel wrote:Honestly veya it sounds like you are just Britain bashing ;-) AND

Who was fighting for other peoples' freedom in the late 18th Century? No one. The French fought for their own freedom then invaded other nations while maintaining an empire and slavery - they were not modern democratic saints by any means. The Americans fought for their own freedom but remained slavers and expanded further into native territory. Your one sided crticism of Britain is rather clouding to be honest. You claim we fought against freedom, but no one fough for freedom at that time, other than their own (ie: France and USA). Our war with France was not anti-freedom, it was against an aggressive power which had forced its way across Europe.

It was Anti Freedom in the USA and in New Zealand and in Australia when fighting for their independence. Plus god knows how many other places.. pretty much list the commonwealth.. except Canada Rolling Eyes

And Didges one side defense of Britain is also rather clouding considering it is a matter of perspective (and I'm French Australian so tongue

) ...
and in Hindsight (if they were knowing at the time or not) they fought against the sides instituted the step toward our modern liberty.

by Guest Sun Sep 21, 2014 6:35 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Honestly veya it sounds like you are just Britain bashing ;-) AND

Who was fighting for other peoples' freedom in the late 18th Century? No one. The French fought for their own freedom then invaded other nations while maintaining an empire and slavery - they were not modern democratic saints by any means. The Americans fought for their own freedom but remained slavers and expanded further into native territory. Your one sided crticism of Britain is rather clouding to be honest. You claim we fought against freedom, but no one fough for freedom at that time, other than their own (ie: France and USA). Our war with France was not anti-freedom, it was against an aggressive power which had forced its way across Europe.

It was Anti Freedom in the USA and in New Zealand and in Australia when fighting for their independence. Plus god knows how many other places.. pretty much list the commonwealth.. except Canada

And Didges one side defense of Britain is also rather clouding considering it is a matter of perspective (and I'm French Australian so ) ...
and in Hindsight (if they were knowing at the time or not) they fought against the sides instituted the step toward our modern liberty.

Ha Ha Ha, no wonder you are so easily upset, being as we have always given the Frogs a good battering, which explains, why you make up and try to distort history, where again all you can do is make up bullshit.I suggest you read 1000 years of annoying the French, it is very apt and will o doubt give you some lessons on English humour.

Was the Battle of Hastings a French victory?

Non! William the Conqueror was Norman and hated the French.

Were the Brits really responsible for the death of Joan of Arc?

Non! The French sentenced her to death for wearing trousers.

Was the guillotine a French invention?

Non! It was invented in Yorkshire.

Ten centuries' worth of French historical 'facts' bite the dust as Stephen Cl...more

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7881207-1000-years-of-annoying-the-french

by Eilzel Sun Sep 21, 2014 7:15 am

Veya, yes Britain was anti-freedom is the USA, that was never a question, and the USA was eternally anti freedom regarding the natives, as Australians were with the aborigines.

But your statement was our fight with Napoleonic France was a fight against freedom- a statement you have danced around but have yet to give any substance to.

So you have French lineage? Come on veya, I'm a Brit but will admit the faults and evils and my nation- don't defend Napoleon as some wholesome liberator of Europe just cause of some misplaced loyalty to a land you prefer being proud of over Britain ;-)

France was as anti-freedom as Britain through the 18th-20th centuries where empire was concerned.

by veya_victaous Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:45 pm

Perspectives Les.... Rolling Eyes

even at the time Not everyone thought Napoleon was bad, Part of the reason he took so many areas so easily, at first, was the upper middles classes welcomed the change of system that would allow them to be more prosperous, Most of the Scientists of the day loved Napoleon Since he removed may of the religious restrictions to their studies, swept away centuries of church dogma for a focus of fact based analysis and decision making.

Napoleon was still the lesser of 2 evils , the Fact that he established the break between church and state will mean that he will always be esteemed in my opinion.
And Even if Napoleon won then dictatorial rule might have lasted for his life time but would have been unlikely to last beyond that, but he was defeated thus the fall of the monarchs had to wait till WW1.. with out the armies fighting to maintain the old system of Hereditary rights it could have been completed much earlier...

And disagree with notion they are Equals against Freedom (although both still seek to enrich themselves first and foremost), France was a Republic of Free citizens were men could rise from the Gutter to the highest ranks, while England was beholden to Hereditary titles, A man born in the gutter, no matter what his quality, was unlikely to rise in station. That is not 'the English system' that is 'the OLD system' the one over thrown in France (and eventually everywhere) and Ultimately Napoleon was the Strongman that spread the Ideals and allowed the creation of many of the institutions that constitute modern 'freedom'.
I cannot Deny he broke many eggs in the process but I think the Omelette it was leading to was worth it.

I stand By the Argument
It is Perspective.... if you love monarchs and church power and believe that is the Best system than Obviously you are right to believe that Napoleon was terrible.

by Guest Mon Sep 22, 2014 12:44 am

by veya_victaous Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:25 am

Didge wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Honestly veya it sounds like you are just Britain bashing ;-) AND

Who was fighting for other peoples' freedom in the late 18th Century? No one. The French fought for their own freedom then invaded other nations while maintaining an empire and slavery - they were not modern democratic saints by any means. The Americans fought for their own freedom but remained slavers and expanded further into native territory. Your one sided crticism of Britain is rather clouding to be honest. You claim we fought against freedom, but no one fough for freedom at that time, other than their own (ie: France and USA). Our war with France was not anti-freedom, it was against an aggressive power which had forced its way across Europe.

It was Anti Freedom in the USA and in New Zealand and in Australia when fighting for their independence. Plus god knows how many other places.. pretty much list the commonwealth.. except Canada

And Didges one side defense of Britain is also rather clouding considering it is a matter of perspective (and I'm French Australian so ) ...
and in Hindsight (if they were knowing at the time or not) they fought against the sides instituted the step toward our modern liberty.

Ha Ha Ha, no wonder you are so easily upset, being as we have always given the Frogs a good battering, which explains, why you make up and try to distort history, where again all you can do is make up bullshit.I suggest you read 1000 years of annoying the French, it is very apt and will o doubt give you some lessons on English humour.

Was the Battle of Hastings a French victory?

Non! William the Conqueror was Norman and hated the French.

Were the Brits really responsible for the death of Joan of Arc?

Non! The French sentenced her to death for wearing trousers.

Was the guillotine a French invention?

Non! It was invented in Yorkshire.

Ten centuries' worth of French historical 'facts' bite the dust as Stephen Cl...more

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7881207-1000-years-of-annoying-the-french

::troll:: ::troll:: ::troll::

Yes yes didge Rolling Eyes

that was the point of starting the argument to show how the British distort history in the English speaking world, when any analysis of the facts show how undoubtedly terrible Britain was tongue

, in its vain attempt to rewrite history to show Britain as some how being better and more important, When really it was little more than a possession of a French Province and before that Barbarians resisting the enlightenment of the Superior Danish Culture Cool

::%:: ::%:: ::%::
And Still Even with all this propaganda it comes off as one of the great Obstacles to Liberty and Democracy. Razz

by Sponsored content