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

First topic message reminder :

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.

Yet more made up history, where you got schooled her by both myself and Eilzel.
Britain has for the most part given the French a battering in war and why Britain has a far more interesting history than France and hence why we have Great in front of our name.
The French hate us for the most part, because our history has countless accounts of Britain kicking their butts.

You should watch the video as is interesting.

LOLOLOLZ

that is just stupid
England was conquered by Normandy... Normandy was just one province of France.
Or are you now going to show me some other English Propaganda that will some how show that Magically even though it was conquered by JUST ONE PROVINCE England was more powerful.

you really do like to prove my point...  again easy assert able fact no one denies(Norman Conquest of England) shows your propaganda to be just that.

veya_victaous wrote:LOLOLOLZ

that is just stupid
England was conquered by Normandy... Normandy was just one province of France.
Or are you now going to show me some other English Propaganda that will some how show that Magically even though it was conquered by JUST ONE PROVINCE England was more powerful.

you really do like to prove my point...  again easy assert able fact no one denies(Norman Conquest of England) shows your propaganda to be just that.

Ha ha, the Normans were Vikings.

The Normans (from Nortmanni: “Northmen”) were originally pagan barbarian pirates from Denmark, Norway, and Iceland who began to make destructive plundering raids on European coastal settlements in the 8th century. 

You are one fucking deranged silly Frog who clearly is upset the English have continue to kick the Frenchies arse. Also England was conquered by the Normans and its allies in the French, showing again how clueless and stupid you are ha ha

Do I have to teach you everything on history you deranged loon?

the Normans were Vikings that settled in France making them French. Just like I am Australian

Yes the Franks were MUCH MUCH smarter than the Anglos which is why the accepted and integrated the superior Norman Warriors... Rather than being Conquered by them..

the way People regarded Frances Military History was Much Different before WW2, and there is no denying that both Britain and the USA have done what they can to down play Frances Superior Military History. Even British Authors would admit it.

the French throughout their long-established existence - an existence that brought about the knight as the mounted chivalric warrior and produced military tacticians such as Joan of Arc and Napoleon Bonaparte. France's battlefield commanders would go on to earn military victories against many of the major principalities governing Europe and the Middle East during their respective time periods. Consider the words of first-hand accounts by those having visited the French frontlines of World War 1:

"...and a certain unconscious brutality of hurry and gesture in the men is related to their inexhaustible and extraordinary military courage. (…) Let a fool hate France."
- G.K. Chesterton

"The French soldiers are grand. They are grand. There is no other word to express it."
- Arthur Conan Doyle, A visit to three fronts (1916)

"Their business is war, and they do their business."
- R. Kipling, France at war (1915)

http://www.militaryfactory.com/battles/french_military_victories.asp

Making them French, ha ha so by your logic the English are French then, one moment

://?roflmao?/:
Gets funnier by the minute, our history has countless victories over the French, nobody has played down anything, the French have just been beaten so many times.

Anyway I am tired and bored of reading your made up history, face facts, the British have continued to spank the French ha ha


Night

Didge wrote:Making them French, ha ha so by your logic the English are French then, one moment

://?roflmao?/:
Gets funnier by the minute, our history has countless victories over the French, nobody has played down anything, the French have just been beaten so many times.

Anyway I am tired and bored of reading your made up history, face facts, the British have continued to spank the French ha ha


Night

why would the English be French you should go to bed as your brain is obviously not working.. I suggest you are the nationality of the nation you were born in, so after the first generation Normans are French because they are born in France.


and you really need to check your history

the first time a force from England Defeated France in battle was 1177 at the Battle of Montgisard, 111 years after the Anglos had been defeated and relegated to Peasants, So yeah Normans that had been in England for over 100 year were the FIRST TIME England even won a single battle against the French.


Even in the Napoleonic wars the Only British General to actually defeat a French Army on land was Wellington (who I will not deny is a top commander)

honestly it is pretty even once England is ruled by non-anglos but to suggest that England was ever a major power on land that 'spanked' anyone is ridiculous. Apart from Wellington the only English war leader with real success on mainland Europe is Edward the 3rd.

I am using your idiotic logic claiming the Normans were French, thus by your logic conquering the English would then make the English French, showing how stupid you are ha ha
The Normans were Norman, that is a fact, to say they were French would have made them froth at the mouth.

England was a major power, from battering the French in the 7 years war, to again in America and then the Napoleonic wars, the list is endless and it shows your are so poor on history it is embarrassing a French apologist which is very funny.

Seriously, you keep kidding yourself, we kicked you out of India, the Caribbean, North America, the list of the French getting their arse whopped is endless sunshine, to the point Britain ruled a quarter of the world, which the French have never come close to doing ha ha
Got to love the Frogs who have little gallant history



So again your views on history are that of a child am happy to give you lessons on this:
.

This is what I've been working on for the past couple of years, following my nose through libraries (both online and off), hunting through 1000 years of history to produce a chunky tome that tries to set the record straight about the long tragi-comedy of relations between the French and all us English-speakers.

I'm not saying we're eternal enemies, or anything like that, just that we can't ignore our pasts. And that our past is studded with wonderful stories of betrayal, distrust, violence and all-too-rare attempts to be nice to each other. Starting with William the Conqueror (who, contrary to what the French might claim, wasn't French at all, and died fighting the Paris-based King of the Franks) and going right up to the horrendous diplomatic gaffes inflicted on Monsieur Sarkozy, I have sifted through our common history for tellable tales, and kept only the juiciest nuggets. Can you have a juicy nugget? Well, I suppose a certain fastfood restaurant would say yes, but I meant the golden kind. How about: I kept only the goldenest historical nuggets. Goldenest? Is that a word? Sorry, I'm rambling. You know what, I’m going to let the book's introduction speak for itself – I think I explained it a bit more clearly there. Here goes:

Introduction

One of the most frequent questions I get when doing readings and talks is: why is there such a love-hate relationship between the French and the Brits?



The love is easy to explain – despite what we might say in public, we find each other irresistibly sexy. The hate is more of a problem – for a start, it’s mistrust rather than hatred. But why is it even there, in these days of Entente Cordiale and European peace?

Like everyone else, I always suspected that the mistrust had something to do with 1066, Agincourt, Waterloo and all that, but I felt that most of our battles were too far in the past to have much effect on the present. So I decided to delve into that past and come up with a more accurate answer.

And having written this book, I finally understand where the never-ending tensions come from. The fact is that our history isn’t history at all. It’s here and now.

William Faulkner was talking about the Southern USA when he said that “the past is never dead. In fact, it’s not even past.” But exactly the same thing can be said about the French and the all English-speakers – no matter what we try to do in the present, the past will always march up and slap us in the face.

To give the simplest of examples – go into the British Embassy in Paris, and what do you see in the first anteroom you enter? A grand portrait of the Duke of Wellington, the man who effectively ended the career of France’s greatest general, Napoleon Bonaparte. Essentially, a two-century-old defeat is brandished in the face of every French visitor to Britain’s diplomatic headquarters … in France’s own capital city.

It’s not tactless or provocative – relations couldn’t be better between the British Embassy and their French hosts – it’s simply there. Just as the battle between the sexes will never end (we hope), neither will the millennium-old rivalry between the French and anyone who happens to be born speaking English.

And the most interesting thing for me was that while researching this book, I found that our versions of the same events are like two completely different stories – the French see history through tricolour-tinted glasses and blame the Brits (and after about 1800, the Americans) for pretty well every misfortune that has ever befallen France. Sometimes they’re right – we have done some nasty things to the French in the past – but often they’re hilariously wrong, and I have tried to set the record straight.

I realize that any book that gives a balanced view of history is going to irritate French people a lot. So I’m really sorry, France, but the 1,000 years of being annoyed by les Anglo-Saxons aren’t over yet …

Et voilà, end of intro, start of book – I hope that makes you want to read more.

http://www.stephenclarkewriter.com/book-stephen-clarke.php?id=00017

Didge wrote:I am using your idiotic logic claiming the Normans were French, thus by your logic conquering the English would then make the English French, showing how stupid you are ha ha
The Normans were Norman, that is a fact, to say they were French would have made them froth at the mouth.

England was a major power, from battering the French in the 7 years war, to again in America and then the Napoleonic wars, the list is endless and it shows your are so poor on history it is embarrassing a French apologist which is very funny.

Seriously, you keep kidding yourself, we kicked you out of India, the Caribbean, North America, the list of the French getting their arse whopped is endless sunshine, to the point Britain ruled a quarter of the world, which the French have never come close to doing ha ha
Got to love the Frogs who have little gallant history



So again your views on history are that of a child am happy to give you lessons on this:
.

No!! It would make the Normans born in England English
Which I do say... otherwise that victory in 1177 would not count as an English Victory

Napoleonic wars you kicked ass??? what the Fuck even Wellington admits to it being Very close in multiple occasions in the campaign and he was the Only Brit to beat the French
Brits generally ended up like Lieutenant-General Sir John Moore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Corunna

Fuck me didge trying to play Brit is Fantastic Propaganda even when the Greatest land General Britain has ever had say the opposite


What do India, the Caribbean and North America all have in common? HEAVY RELIANCE ON NAVAL FORCES .. no one is denying Britain ruled the waves and If you had even one honest bone in your body you'd admit that is how Britain got it's empire not by its land forces but by Naval Forces... even in India Britain's most successful land General was Wellington

Also note ALL EXAMPLES from the last stages of the age of Empire... which as I said from the beginning England plays up to try and make it out like it was always some great power when largely it was not.

lol thousand years of being annoyed by anglo saxons .. Already showed you, only once Normans joined were you able to win the First victory against France and that was only 837 years ago...
LOLZ prove my point about England trying to play up its rather short history of success. Also lolz at the Anglo thing seeing as it was not till Anglo Kings were no more that England even had the most basic of successes.

veya_victaous wrote:lol thousand years of being annoyed by anglo saxons .. Already showed you, only once Normans joined were you able to win the First victory against France and that was only 837 years ago...
LOLZ prove my point about England trying to play up its rather short history of success. Also lolz at the Anglo thing seeing as it was not till Anglo Kings were no more that England even had the most basic of successes.

lol what does that prove?
Nothing except there was little conflict between the two at the time, what an idiotic claim to make ha ha ha

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:I am using your idiotic logic claiming the Normans were French, thus by your logic conquering the English would then make the English French, showing how stupid you are ha ha
The Normans were Norman, that is a fact, to say they were French would have made them froth at the mouth.

England was a major power, from battering the French in the 7 years war, to again in America and then the Napoleonic wars, the list is endless and it shows your are so poor on history it is embarrassing a French apologist which is very funny.

Seriously, you keep kidding yourself, we kicked you out of India, the Caribbean, North America, the list of the French getting their arse whopped is endless sunshine, to the point Britain ruled a quarter of the world, which the French have never come close to doing ha ha
Got to love the Frogs who have little gallant history



So again your views on history are that of a child am happy to give you lessons on this:
.

No!! It would make the Normans born in England English
Which I do say... otherwise that victory in 1177 would not count as an English Victory

Napoleonic wars you kicked ass???  what the Fuck even Wellington admits to it being Very close in multiple occasions in the campaign and he was the Only Brit to beat the French
Brits generally ended up like  Lieutenant-General Sir John Moore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Corunna

Fuck me didge trying to play Brit is Fantastic Propaganda even when the Greatest land General Britain has ever had say the opposite      


What do India, the Caribbean and North America all have in common? HEAVY RELIANCE ON NAVAL FORCES .. no one is denying Britain ruled the waves and If you had even one honest bone in your body you'd admit that is how Britain got it's empire not by its land forces but by Naval Forces... even in India Britain's most successful land General was Wellington  

Also note ALL EXAMPLES from the last stages of the age of Empire...  which as I said from the beginning England plays up to try and make it out like it was always some great power when largely it was not.

Hilarious and more stupidity from Veya, the English were the Angles, that is where we get the name from, thus the people became to be known as English, so by your stupid daft logic they would be French according you, you thick chld ha ha

Close?

://?roflmao?/:

How many battles did Wellington win and Nelsen again?

Sorry you frogs are good entertainment but utterly clueless.

You still need men on the ground to fight in India etc, so again what a idiotic points.

Sorry you are about as stupid as smelly and I do not waste my time with such stupidity.

How do you make out he was the best?

Wow easily Marlborough was our best General you child, ad he gave the French a sound kicking also ha ha
Anyway to say it was close is being modest on his part, he kicked their sorry arses in countless battles, because he was good ad the Brits were disciplined soldiers unlike the savage uncivilised French.

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:I am using your idiotic logic claiming the Normans were French, thus by your logic conquering the English would then make the English French, showing how stupid you are ha ha
The Normans were Norman, that is a fact, to say they were French would have made them froth at the mouth.

England was a major power, from battering the French in the 7 years war, to again in America and then the Napoleonic wars, the list is endless and it shows your are so poor on history it is embarrassing a French apologist which is very funny.

Seriously, you keep kidding yourself, we kicked you out of India, the Caribbean, North America, the list of the French getting their arse whopped is endless sunshine, to the point Britain ruled a quarter of the world, which the French have never come close to doing ha ha
Got to love the Frogs who have little gallant history



So again your views on history are that of a child am happy to give you lessons on this:
.

No!! It would make the Normans born in England English
Which I do say... otherwise that victory in 1177 would not count as an English Victory

Napoleonic wars you kicked ass???  what the Fuck even Wellington admits to it being Very close in multiple occasions in the campaign and he was the Only Brit to beat the French
Brits generally ended up like  Lieutenant-General Sir John Moore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Corunna

Fuck me didge trying to play Brit is Fantastic Propaganda even when the Greatest land General Britain has ever had say the opposite      


What do India, the Caribbean and North America all have in common? HEAVY RELIANCE ON NAVAL FORCES .. no one is denying Britain ruled the waves and If you had even one honest bone in your body you'd admit that is how Britain got it's empire not by its land forces but by Naval Forces... even in India Britain's most successful land General was Wellington  

Also note ALL EXAMPLES from the last stages of the age of Empire...  which as I said from the beginning England plays up to try and make it out like it was always some great power when largely it was not.

Hilarious and more stupidity from Veya, the English were the Angles, that is where we get the name from, thus the people became to be known as English, so by your stupid daft logic they would be French according you, you thick chld ha ha

And the Place Known as England is Home to ?? this is actually the problem with Europeans today, Your racist fools that think you cant move, If you move to England after a generation you become 'whatever English' Just like I am a 'French Australian' or their are 'Irish Americans' So England was named after the Angles but non-anglos also became English, or are you like Jews you got be born one and cannot become one, or are you a nation that people of varying genetic backgrounds can join?

Close?

://?roflmao?/:

How many battles did Wellington win and Nelsen again?

Sorry you frogs are good entertainment but utterly clueless.

You still need men on the ground to fight in India etc, so again what a idiotic points.

Sorry you are about as stupid as smelly and I do not waste my time with such stupidity.

How do you make out he was the best?

Wow easily Marlborough "more than the ferocity, and much less than the sagacity, of a bloodhound" debatable he won but often with odds in his favour Wellington won less but had more do or die battles with the odds stacked against him, the main reason he get credit is Wellington calls him the best, but Wellington is hardly likely to say the he Himself is the best.was our best General you child, ad he gave the French a sound kicking also ha ha
Anyway to say it was close is being modest on his part, he kicked their sorry arses in countless battles, because he was good ad the Brits were disciplined soldiers unlike the savage uncivilised French.

you mean the Redcoats got flogged it they disobeyed an officer Born to the Rank and promoted on Hereditary Privileges I think that was my point, the French were freeman Conscripts sure but Freemen after their turn and if they had talent they could be a Marshall of France... what was that about the Brits fighting against freedom You seem to JUST claim that was your strength.

ALSO again thanks for highlighting my point that British success is only very very recent and Brits continually highlight the recent events to cover the centuries they were under the French thumb. Apart from that you got one successful king and a handful of other victories over a period of about 650 years. during which time dozens upon dozens of French Victories over the English.

British success has been going on for a very long time, the victories over the French show this and only a civil war within England allowed the French to recover and have a very poor King.
The redcoats were exceptionally disciplined soldiers, flogging was wrong but the British are was superior to the French in countless of these battles and in many cases with less numbers

Veya, my issue is how you single out Britain as a barrier to freedom. You have yet to say how Britain differed from other nations, including France in this regard. If anything Britain helped liberate European states from Napoleonic dictatorship. You don't just want to knock any attempt at pointing out the fact the British Empire DID have some benefits- you seem to be implying it was one of the greatest evils with no good whatsoever- that is just rubbish and to me shows an inate bias which may come from your French-Australian heritage...

I have often found that people who are not British go around looking for British "mistakes" I think they are just a little miffed they are not British.

Eilzel wrote:Veya, my issue is how you single out Britain as a barrier to freedom. You have yet to say how Britain differed from other nations, including France in this regard. If anything Britain helped liberate European states from Napoleonic dictatorship. You don't just want to knock any attempt at pointing out the fact the British Empire DID have some benefits- you seem to be implying it was one of the greatest evils with no good whatsoever- that is just rubbish and to me shows an inate bias which may come from your French-Australian heritage...

I never said Britain was the ONLY barrier to freedom
One of
One of the greatest
but never the ONLY

Russia easily surpasses Britain in relation to its own people
and Spain well debatable they could be the seen as a greater barrier they were definitely more 'intense' but less they were less effective. so I don't know if that is a complement but the redcoats were much better at doing what they here charged with doing than the Spanish military.... just what they were charged with doing was 'prevent freedom'

OR you removed the Liberation of Napoleon an reinstated feudal Monarchies and Religious law.... it is a matter of perspective.... one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter

I credit the French Revolution for what it did for France and French people. But you are attempting to cast Napoleon as a liberator of Europe, when he was anything but, he wasn't liberating them, he was conquoring them, and made himself Emperor in the process.

Eilzel wrote:I credit the French Revolution for what it did for France and French people. But you are attempting to cast Napoleon as a liberator of Europe, when he was anything but, he wasn't liberating them, he was conquoring them, and made himself Emperor in the process.

And caused the deaths of millions through his warmongering.

Eilzel wrote:I credit the French Revolution for what it did for France and French people. But you are attempting to cast Napoleon as a liberator of Europe, when he was anything but, he wasn't liberating them, he was conquoring them, and made himself Emperor in the process.

that is the way England tells history... but not the way history is told in France, Belgium or Poland

The Napoleon Bonaparte Monument in Warsaw was erected to honor the French military and political leader Napoleon Bonaparte on the 190th anniversary of his death.

I did not notice this and is comical:

And the Place Known as England is Home to ?? this is actually the problem with Europeans today, Your racist fools that think you cant move, If you move to England after a generation you become 'whatever English' Just like I am a 'French Australian' or their are 'Irish Americans' So England was named after the Angles but non-anglos also became English, or are you like Jews you got be born one and cannot become one, or are you a nation that people of varying genetic backgrounds can join?




Race has nothing to do with it, showing how you do not understand racism, your view was that the Normans were French, this absurd, as their country was Normandy, not France, where again the Brits became English or were seen to be English defined by the people ruling them.
Again William hated the French ad died fighting against them. You confuse nationalities with race, when biologically it does not exist as we are all one race. how many times do I have to educate you on this.?
Basically what you are saying is the Welsh are not Welsh, because they have been under English rule and thus are English which is absurd.

Didge wrote:I did not notice this and is comical:

And the Place Known as England is Home to ?? this is actually the problem with Europeans today, Your racist fools that think you cant move, If you move to England after a generation you become 'whatever English' Just like I am a 'French Australian' or their are 'Irish Americans' So England was named after the Angles but non-anglos also became English, or are you like Jews you got be born one and cannot become one, or are you a nation that people of varying genetic backgrounds can join?




Race has nothing to do with it, showing how you do not understand racism, your view was that the Normans were French, this absurd, as their country was Normandy, not France, where again the Brits became English or were seen to be English defined by the people ruling them.
Again William hated the French ad died fighting against them. You confuse nationalities with race, when biologically it does not exist as we are all one race. how many times do I have to educate you on this.?
Basically what you are saying is the Welsh are not Welsh, because they have been under English rule and thus are English which is absurd.

were do the welsh live... wales so they are welsh ::hdintowll::

Your the one saying someone race has something to with something other than where they were born...

As you STILL don;t seem to get it I will simplify my Opinion for you

YOU ARE OF THE PLACE YOU WERE BORN
If you are born in France you are French
If you are born in England you are English
if you are born in Wales your Welsh
::dedhrs:: ::dedhrs:: ::dedhrs:: ::dedhrs::


DID you follow that???
if so lets try the next step
IF your parents are French (or specific ethnic group, like Norman) and you are born in England you are English of French Decent a.k.a. French English... ok it does sound weird using but that is mainly because you Europeans have strange racist legacies..
French Australian, Maltese Australian, Italian Australian, Chinese Australian or Scottish Singaporean Chinese Australian are all pretty normal things to consider ones self here.

ANYWAY Normans Born in England were English Normans as opposed to French Normans born in France

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:I did not notice this and is comical:

And the Place Known as England is Home to ?? this is actually the problem with Europeans today, Your racist fools that think you cant move, If you move to England after a generation you become 'whatever English' Just like I am a 'French Australian' or their are 'Irish Americans' So England was named after the Angles but non-anglos also became English, or are you like Jews you got be born one and cannot become one, or are you a nation that people of varying genetic backgrounds can join?




Race has nothing to do with it, showing how you do not understand racism, your view was that the Normans were French, this absurd, as their country was Normandy, not France, where again the Brits became English or were seen to be English defined by the people ruling them.
Again William hated the French ad died fighting against them. You confuse nationalities with race, when biologically it does not exist as we are all one race. how many times do I have to educate you on this.?
Basically what you are saying is the Welsh are not Welsh, because they have been under English rule and thus are English which is absurd.

were do the welsh live... wales so they are welsh  ::hdintowll::

Your the one saying someone race has something to with something other than where they were born...

As you STILL don;t seem to get it I will simplify my Opinion for you

YOU ARE OF THE PLACE YOU WERE BORN
If you are born in France you are French
If you are born in England you are English
if you are born in Wales your Welsh
::dedhrs::  ::dedhrs::  ::dedhrs::  ::dedhrs::


DID you follow that???
if so lets try the next step
IF your parents are French (or specific ethnic group, like Norman) and you are born in England you are English of French Decent a.k.a. French English...  ok it does sound weird using but that is mainly because you Europeans have strange racist legacies..
French Australian, Maltese Australian, Italian Australian, Chinese Australian or Scottish Singaporean Chinese Australian are all pretty normal things to consider ones self here.

ANYWAY  Normans Born in England were English Normans as opposed to French Normans born in France  

All irrelevant, as Wales formed part of England through conquest, thus you think the Welsh are English by your absurd logic.
You see what you fail to neglect there was no such reality of France at the time of the Normans, there were very much countries within their own right, which you seem to neglect, hence why your view is absurd and the fact that the Norman were in fact Norse and derives its name this way.
I am going by your absurd logic, I am English and British of Irish and Sicilian Ethnicity, but just because an area is ruled by another nation does not make that people become of that nation, take for example the Basque people, they do not see themselves as Spanish, so your logic is absurd.
So are you claiming the Basque are Spanish?

Of course not, I suggest you bow out gracefully

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:I did not notice this and is comical:

And the Place Known as England is Home to ?? this is actually the problem with Europeans today, Your racist fools that think you cant move, If you move to England after a generation you become 'whatever English' Just like I am a 'French Australian' or their are 'Irish Americans' So England was named after the Angles but non-anglos also became English, or are you like Jews you got be born one and cannot become one, or are you a nation that people of varying genetic backgrounds can join?




Race has nothing to do with it, showing how you do not understand racism, your view was that the Normans were French, this absurd, as their country was Normandy, not France, where again the Brits became English or were seen to be English defined by the people ruling them.
Again William hated the French ad died fighting against them. You confuse nationalities with race, when biologically it does not exist as we are all one race. how many times do I have to educate you on this.?
Basically what you are saying is the Welsh are not Welsh, because they have been under English rule and thus are English which is absurd.

were do the welsh live... wales so they are welsh  ::hdintowll::

Your the one saying someone race has something to with something other than where they were born...

As you STILL don;t seem to get it I will simplify my Opinion for you

YOU ARE OF THE PLACE YOU WERE BORN
If you are born in France you are French
If you are born in England you are English
if you are born in Wales your Welsh
::dedhrs::  ::dedhrs::  ::dedhrs::  ::dedhrs::


DID you follow that???
if so lets try the next step
IF your parents are French (or specific ethnic group, like Norman) and you are born in England you are English of French Decent a.k.a. French English...  ok it does sound weird using but that is mainly because you Europeans have strange racist legacies..
French Australian, Maltese Australian, Italian Australian, Chinese Australian or Scottish Singaporean Chinese Australian are all pretty normal things to consider ones self here.

ANYWAY  Normans Born in England were English Normans as opposed to French Normans born in France  

All irrelevant, as Wales formed part of England through conquest, thus you think the Welsh are English by your absurd logic.
You see what you fail to neglect there was no such reality of France at the time of the Normans, there were very much countries within their own right, which you seem to neglect, hence why your view is absurd and the fact that the Norman were in fact Norse and derives its name this way.
I am going by your absurd logic, I am English and British of Irish and Sicilian Ethnicity and thus define myself by my nation, but just because an area is ruled by another nation does not make that people become of that nation, take for example the Basque people, they do not see themselves as Spanish or French, so your logic is absurd.
So are you claiming the Basque are Spanish or French?

Of course not, I suggest you bow out gracefully

the nation of Normandy hey

As opposed to a Duke of Normandy whose liege lord was the King of France (I'll give you it was generally called Franks back then)

yep I'll bow out now to save you further embarrassment...


the Basque are part of Spain so they are Spanish
Silly Irrelevant European Question...
DO I call myself a New South Welshman? call a spade a spade, they are Europeans.

veya_victaous wrote:the nation of Normandy hey

As opposed to a Duke of Normandy whose liege lord was the King of France (I'll give you it was generally called Franks back then)

yep I'll bow out now to save you further embarrassment...  


the Basque are part of Spain so they are Spanish
Silly Irrelevant European Question...  
DO I call myself a New South Welshman? call a spade a spade, they are Europeans.

They do not see themselves as Spanish or French and have their own language, basically, they are under control by Spanish and French rule and thus seek independence and they are a people, which you are thus avoiding the point of just as the Welsh are.
You are not even Australian really, it is again an invented nation, the indigenous are the true Australians, the same with Americans. You basically have taken over these nations and thus called your selves a new type of people yet are of European descent yourselves
William hated the French the point you keep missing so yes I suggest you bow out on something again you fail to fully undestand

No Aboriginal called them self Australian before 1901 (or anyone for that matter)
you should probably just end that their didge,  they are Koori
Burramatta, Toongal and near 200 other tribal nations.
It is British Propaganda that Called them Aboriginals and claimed they were one peoples(actually you said they were animals ).

BUT regardless they are also 'Koori Australians'..

I am Australian like anyone can be Australian
Australian is not a race it is a concept a 'team' if you will as much as we are a nation.
You can be born here or you can choose to come here, but any that are here or from here and loves Our Great southern land can call themselves Australian.

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice:
I am, you are, we are Australian

AND So what If William hated the French... Do I love England? Mum is Anglo Aussie...  his like or dislike means less than nothing

I knew you would walk into my trap Veya, as you have now contradicted yourself over the Normans.
All nations are a concept and Normandy was a nation, thus they were not French.

Night

Post up where I stated they were animals?

I stated humans are animals, which they are, do not lie Veya, I know you are French, which is why I guess you lie, but do not make up bullshit, I expect you to put this up or apologize.
Plus it has been mainly Aussies that have treated them ever so poorly and still do to this day, where you wish to eradicate their culture and I do not.

Goodnight

'I am Australian' in Sacred Songs Finale (because Buddhist understand this is a sacred oath to Australians)


It is our Unofficial Anthem


we'd even let you become Australian

Didge wrote:Post up where I stated they were animals? YOU as in British not You didge the individual

I stated humans are animals, which they are, do not lie Veya, I know you are French, which is why I guess you lie, but do not make up bullshit, I expect you to put this up or apologize.
Plus it has been mainly Aussies that have treated them ever so poorly and still do to this day, where you wish to eradicate their culture and I do not.

Goodnight

LOLZ British lords were the ones fighting to stop Australian Citizen Giving Aboriginals back some of their Land.
And most people doing the oppressing were British (Aussies are not even a thing until 1901) even up until 1970's

the last to try and legitimise and retain some legal ability to oppress Aboriginals was British peer Lord Vestey

In the 1960s and '70s, the Gurindji tribe of the Northern Territory, employed on the Wave Hill cattle station owned by Britain's Lord Vestey, staged a landmark struggle for Aboriginal justice. The campaign, Australia's first successful Aboriginal land claim, began as an industrial dispute. This had the immediate effect of challenging the Australian labour movement to address its attitudes on the rights and conditions of Aborigines, attitudes which until then had been often indifferent and sometimes openly hostile. Members of the Communist Party of Australia played a critical role, particularly in efforts to mobilise trade union support and build a solidarity movement.

Didge wrote:I knew you would walk into my trap Veya, as you have now contradicted yourself over the Normans.
All nations are a concept and Normandy was a nation, thus they were not French.

Night

Norman are an Ethnicity they are from a Province of France that's why he was a duke and not a king.

Some Nations like you are trying to claim of European ones are both Ethnicity and Nation Australia is in NO WAY an ethnicity since we can be of any ethnicity.

Sorry Didge we went and changed the game on you Europeans.


If you help me cuz(cousin) and I help you mag'in(imagine) all the mad(great) things we could do  

Join your hands across Australia and sing with one voice.

Normans were Vikings who spread their seed from Ireland to France to the south of Italy ... basically across the world as they knew it. Also, they adopted their conquered nations' cultures (to the point that an English king complained they'd become "more Irish than the Irish themselves") ... basically the best people you could ever be conquered by.

Love,

A guy who used to use the screen name "L'anglais," a Norman name

Ben_Reilly wrote:Normans were Vikings who spread their seed from Ireland to France to the south of Italy ... basically across the world as they knew it. Also, they adopted their conquered nations' cultures (to the point that an English king complained they'd become "more Irish than the Irish themselves") ... basically the best people you could ever be conquered by.

Love,

A guy who used to use the screen name "L'anglais," a Norman name

You should have put that in the thread about 'Evil King Alfred'

Cannot stop laughing at the dribble Veya posted, you are on cracked up unhinged loon, you stated I said Aboriginals were animals, I never did.
It does not matter if he was king or not, ha ha, that is absurd and completely illogical
Your view on the Normans is wrong and you are clearly very anti English and British, well we think the Frogs are nothing but losers and collaborators, ha ha, twice having to come and liberate you.









A common misconception today is that the Normans were "French." Strictly speaking this is not true although it is a widely held belief and, like most beliefs, has some basis in fact.
Norman trade and raiding routes - early 10th century ADTowards the end of the ninth century, the Viking raiders from Northern Europe (commonly known as Norsemen) were regularly foraging (raiding and trading) along the coast line of the Frankish kingdoms. During these raids, the Vikings got more and more bold - even going as far as sailing up the Seine and sacking Paris. Initially the raiders would set off from their home villages in Scandinavia and return a few weeks later with any plunder they had gathered, however as the raids continued the Norsemen started establishing raiding bases away from home.



http://normans.etrusia.co.uk/whowere.php

The poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge famously wrote 'Frenchman are like gunpowder: each by itself smutty and contemptible, but mass them together, and they are terrible indeed.'
And whether it's William the Conqueror squaring up to King Harold, or Maggie Thatcher hand-bagging Jacques Delors, the French and the English, it seems, have always been the best of enemies. So for anyone requiring a good dose of Froggie bashing, Stephen Clarke's new book should put a spring in your step.
1,000 Years Of Annoying The French chronicles the various ways in which the Brits (and virtually every other nation) have been waging a campaign to infuriate our nearest neighbours. And if this account is to be believed, very successfully we've done it too.
The French have always considered themselves to be nature's aristocrats, whilst their failures (such as Crecy, Agincourt, and their candidature for the 2012 Olympics) have been swept under the carpet by a race who 'still consider Napoleon's retreat from Moscow to be a strategic withdrawal, and the Nazi occupation of France as merely a waiting period until De Gaulle was ready to come back and seize victory.'
But in chronicling a millennium spent glowering at one another from across the Channel, Clarke also makes a spirited argument for English ownership of virtually every great French tradition.
Take Champagne, for instance. Far from being a French invention, bubbly only became possible once British bottle-making techniques provided a product that could withstand all that extra fizz without the contents exploding all over your dinner table. And with the onset of global warming, the best vintages will soon be grown on the Hackney Marshes, anyway.
Even the guillotine, ultimate symbol of liberty, equality and fraternity, can claim to be an English invention. An earlier version of this device for achieving rapid weight-loss was allegedly being used in a small market town in Yorkshire some years before the eponymous Parisian professor came up with his own design.
Guillotine
'Le Halifax' in action?
As Clarke gleefully observes, it would have been even more fun to contemplate the French nobility having their heads collectively chopped off by something called 'Le Halifax'. Virtually no French icon, human or otherwise, escapes his coruscating enquiries as he explodes one Gallic myth after another.
William the Conqueror, it transpires, was in fact a Norman who hated the French almost as much as we did: Joan of Arc, the ultimate Brit-baiter, was actually sentenced to death by her own countrymen; while no less an authority than Robespierre himself claimed the Revolution was started by England 'to lead France, exhausted and dismembered, to a change of dynasty'.
The greatest of all French authors, Victor Hugo, admitted he was no match for Shakespeare, while the last French Emperor, and nephew of the great Napoleon himself, ended up being killed by British medics at Chislehurst in 1873 after a bungled operation to remove bladder stones. Even French cuisine is put through the cultural mincer.
While baguettes and croissants apparently hail from Austria, the classic French dish, steak et frites, is at least one half British in inspiration.
Alexander Dumas records the arrival of le bifteck from England in his diaries, proving beyond doubt it was the ancestors of Jamie Oliver rather than Escoffier who first realised it might taste nicer lightly grilled than stewed to oblivion. Thus the French moniker for anyone from our side of the Channel: Les Rosbifs.
Although there is huge fun to be had in Clarke's well-researched account, at more than 500 pages it is an exhaustive, and at times exhausting, read: and while his wry, tongue-in-cheek style works well when delving about in the mists of history, it sits less happily with more recent events - such as the two World Wars and the horror of Nazi occupation.
Nonetheless, anyone who's ever encountered a snooty Parisian waiter or found themselves driving on the Boulevard Peripherique during August will enjoy this book.
In any case, since the signing of the Entente Cordiale (mainly due to the influence of Edward VII, by the way), all has been sweetness and light between the two nations - hasn't it?


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-1258399/How-English-invented-champagne-facts-guaranteed-infuriate-French--1-000-YEARS-OF-ANNOYING-THE-FRENCH-BY-STEPHEN-CLARKE.html#ixzz3E7j8O5bF
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Hi Didge, I applaud your research, well done, and Eizel. Many countries were involved in the slave trade and no less France. Veya's attempts to make France look the nice boys, they were just as bad. See below:

As of 1778, the French were importing approximately 13,000 Africans for enslavement to the French West Indies.

French Saint-Domingue had become the largest and most brutal slave societies of the region, rivaling Brazil as a destination for enslaved Africans.
The French colony of Saint-Domingue quickly began to out-produce all of the British islands' sugar combined. Though sugar was driven by slavery, rising costs for the British made it easier for the British abolitionists to be heard.
Slavery was first abolished by the French Republic in 1794, this took effect in all French colonies. Slavery in the French West Indies was reinstated in 1802 by Napoleon I The population of Haiti was made up of 5% of slaves.

@Stardesk
I never once said France was not involved in slave trade....

Nothing any of you has post changes the Fact England Was More often than not on the side fighting Against those frighting for freedom.. France was not perfect but it still removed slavery first, it still gave it's citizens and soldiers rights un-dreamt of in the Britain, It stopped people with inherited powers flogging people for disagreeing with them and failing to bow and tug a forelock.

EXAMPLES American Revolution, Eureka stockade, the Maori War, the Boer War...

Also I'll add Both French and English History will be biased so I think we have to ask someone else... and I think the Poles are a good start IF anyone know a good conqueror when they are conquered by one it's the Poles. they don't have statues to Hitler or any of those Crazy Tsars but Napoleon... well the Poles say he was a good conqueror, Freed them from the old tyrants that nations like England and Russia were trying to restore and maintain in their own countries.

SO are you Englishmen honestly saying if you were teleported to an alternate reality you'd prefer to live as peasant under a monarch with laws determined by the church than as a free citizen of a republic???

stardesk wrote:Hi Didge, I applaud your research, well done, and Eizel. Many countries were involved in the slave trade and no less France. Veya's attempts to make France look the nice boys, they were just as bad. See below:

As of 1778, the French were importing approximately 13,000 Africans for enslavement to the French West Indies.

French Saint-Domingue had become the largest and most brutal slave societies of the region, rivaling Brazil as a destination for enslaved Africans.
The French colony of Saint-Domingue quickly began to out-produce all of the British islands' sugar combined. Though sugar was driven by slavery, rising costs for the British made it easier for the British abolitionists to be heard.
Slavery was first abolished by the French Republic in 1794, this took effect in all French colonies. Slavery in the French West Indies was reinstated in 1802 by Napoleon I The population of Haiti was made up of 5% of slaves.

Well said mate

Hi Didge. I think this arguement can go on for ever. What we must do is accept the fact that our respective countries are all guilty. Whether the slave trade, grabbing the gold, silver, diamonds and copper from Africa and other countries, most western European countries were raping the lands of other nations.
As for the slave trade, England, France, Spain, Portugal, were all at it. France had several colonies in Africa. I don't think they 'purchased' produce from those colonies, of course not, like the rest of us they grabbed what they could to boost their trade and bank balances.

We can go on and on, tar each other, but we must face up to the fact that we are all as bad.

+1

stardesk wrote:Hi Didge. I think this arguement can go on for ever. What we must do is accept the fact that our respective countries are all guilty. Whether the slave trade, grabbing the gold, silver, diamonds and copper from Africa and other countries, most western European countries were raping the lands of other nations.
As for the slave trade, England, France, Spain, Portugal, were all at it. France had several colonies in Africa. I don't think they 'purchased' produce from those colonies, of course not, like the rest of us they grabbed what they could to boost their trade and bank balances.

We can go on and on, tar each other, but we must face up to the fact that we are all as bad.

HI Stardesk

Very much agree, and I have stated countless times the wrongs done by this nation in history.

Thanks for the + Nicko.
Didge, I think it is part of human nature, well, with a lot of people, to take advantage of those who are weaker. As I did recently in a petrol station. I bought something else in the kiosk, pointed to my car and said the pump number. The girl charged me for the other goods but not the £40 fuel! I took advantage of her incompetance and calmly walked out and drove off.

Britain and other nations, and indeed nations way back in history, have taken what they wanted from weaker countries and people.

SO are you Englishmen honestly saying if you were teleported to an alternate reality you'd prefer to live as peasant under a monarch with laws determined by the church than as a free citizen of a republic???

SEE ALL OF YOU FAIL TO ADDRESS THE ACTUAL POINT!!!!!!

PS. in 1788 England Rounded up it's own citizens but them in chains sand sent them to the other side of the world as slave labour for the colony of New South Wales.... So yeah France was mean to weaker nations like everyone else but AGAIN they were free Citizens with rights that far exceeded anything a British commoner could dream of.

Um French citizens were hardly free during the time period referenced.

The Absolutist monarchy, The Revolution, The Terror, Napoleon, The Second empire, The Restoration of the Bourbons, The Commune, The 3rd & 4th Empires, The Vichy Regime........

Well said Cass.

It is funny, veya you are taking the 'democratic' virtue of revolutionary France as proven solely by the fact Napoleon is immortalised in France and even Poland via a statue.

This is naive isn't it? Do you also think China's Chairman Mao is a real hero due to the fact millions of Chinese people idolise him to this day? And the same with Lenin in Russia and some of the former Soviet states.

I'd put that all three are celebrated for the periods of success they brought to their nations or the fact they 'at least' were involved in ridding a previous oppressor- but in spite of that, all three were power hungry dictators. Don't mix up the fact they are liked by many as somehow being a measure of their democratic virtue.

Cass wrote:Um French citizens were hardly free during the time period referenced.

The Absolutist monarchy, The Revolution, The Terror, Napoleon, The Second empire,  The Restoration of the Bourbons, The Commune, The 3rd & 4th Empires,  The Vichy Regime........

and the USA?
It is not like England JUST fought France.... and Revolution is still better than Monarchy,
ASK your self if life under Napoleon was REALLY so bad how did we raise an army the SECOND time, Why were SO MANY not just from France Willing to Fight for him Against the Old Monarchs???
No one is saying it is as good as we have it now BUT it was better than ENGLAND. The Freedom we have to today is Thanks to the USA and France(if it wasn't for Napoleon ideals like separation of church and state could have remained exclusive to the new world and never become accepted in Europe) England Fought against Both these groups.

And During revolution and Napoleon times A French Citizen COULD show their Merit in Actual Skills and be promoted to the social rank their ACTUAL Merit deserves as opposed to England where it was more important be of noble linage than have actual talent. SO one of the most basic freedoms was available when it was not in England. Napoleon is famed for promoting men of skill and ending entitlement based institutional Nepotism (although Napoleon Did practice Nepotism regarding his brother), example Michel Ney son of a barrel maker Promoted to a Marshall of France.


STILL FRENCH CITIZEN MUCH MORE FREE THAN ENGLISH
So you'd prefer to live without separation of church and state??
Ultimately that what it comes down to.
IF England's System was Right than the USA was Wrong and most of the western world is Wrong today... Personally I think Franklin one of the greatest Politicians/statesman of all time... I would much prefer to live in nation inspired by his thoughts than a nation loyal to king George

On one occasion, Franklin was dining at a Paris restaurant and learned that Edward Gibbon, the British historian who chronicled ancient Rome’s decline and fall, was there, too. Franklin invited Gibbon to his table, but Gibbon declined, saying that since he was loyal to George III, he wouldn’t speak with a rebel. Franklin replied that if Gibbon ever wanted to write a history of Britain’s decline and fall, he would provide ample materials.

Veya, how do you explain Britain's evolution into a full and free democracy without the blood of the French revolution? I dare say many would have preferred the stability of the UK in the 18th and 19th centuries to the terror of the revolution in the late 18th centuries and the constant upheavals of the 19th century.

Eilzel wrote:Well said Cass.

It is funny, veya you are taking the 'democratic' virtue of revolutionary France as proven solely by the fact Napoleon is immortalised in France and even Poland via a statue.

This is naive isn't it? Do you also think China's Chairman Mao is a real hero due to the fact millions of Chinese people idolise him to this day? And the same with Lenin in Russia and some of the former Soviet states.

I'd put that all three are celebrated for the periods of success they brought to their nations or the fact they 'at least' were involved in ridding a previous oppressor- but in spite of that, all three were power hungry dictators. Don't mix up the fact they are liked by many as somehow being a measure of their democratic virtue.

YES
They are no Different that Caesar Or Alexander... Definitely no worse than Alfred of Wessex or King George, Queen Victoria Or Queen Elizabeth....
IT is naive to think anything ever changes without Breaking some Eggs....
IF we were to follow YOUR logic Les we should all still be sitting in caves...
IF you want an omelette you need to break some eggs.... Unless you want a really shit vegan omelette

AND THE ONLY THING THAT STOP KING GEORGE BEING A DICTATOR IS THE FACT HIS SUPPOSED DESCENDED FORM A FAMILY GIVEN THE RIGHT TO RULE BY GOD... fuck that Les!!!! a Man like Mao that rules by 'the power of personality and ideas' is a million times better than a man that rules 'because of who his father was'
China's rise under Mao Still had a lot less deaths than the rise of the British Empire. I mean between the European powers they 'encouraged' more deaths during the 'Boxer Revolution' than total deaths in WW1, which eclipses the total deaths under Mao regime.

you are rather sounding like Didge "IF they British than their actions are good and all the bad things forgotten or excused... if they are not British than even if they do good and promoted the Ideals we call good today they are some how bad because they don't speak English and weren't part of the British empire."

Really any one that wears a Che shirt

should be Just as proud to wear a Mao one.

Eilzel wrote:Veya, how do you explain Britain's evolution into a full and free democracy without the blood of the French revolution? I dare say many would have preferred the stability of the UK in the 18th and 19th centuries to the terror of the revolution in the late 18th centuries and the constant upheavals of the 19th century.

Nations do not exist in Bubbles, England would never have even asked(and still had several small wars) for freedom if they didn't have French people next to them with it.
Just like the French would not have had their revolution IF the USA hadn't just PROVED nations do not need Monarchs and Nobility to exist. The USA made people Question what was possible.. Napoleon PROVED it could be done even against some of the longest established powers.. He Showed the Common people that those guys telling everyone 'God has chosen them to rule' were full of shit and men of skill and intelligence regardless of their breeding can defeat them and win Freedom.