DieHardBrownsFan Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Dude, go back to the Buffalo blogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koalabazooka Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 Yeah, cal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 Chris I wonder about the status of the blacks in Great Britain as to their history. I'm assuming most of them freely emigrated to your country, correct? Also, no offense meant, but you guys have been a welfare state substantially longer than we have, correct? It seems to me that here in the US a combination of white guilt over slavery and a welfare system that favors single parent families have ruined the sub group. Maybe not destroyed but certainly these things have had a detrimental effect. With the memory of the British Empire it would seem logical for Pakistanis or Indians to move to England or Canada as it is with Algerians and so forth in France. Have any of them ever been slaves? I would think that at least in Europe the slavery excuse is off the table. Yes? No? WSS The vast majority did. After ww2, we obviously had something of a labour gap, and so men were recruited from all available places - largely from the west indies and south asia. There was a slavery industry in Britain, but I'm not sure it was quite the same scale as over there. For starters, a lot of slave in the US were working on plantations and things, right? We didn't really have vast swathes of unused land to make these plantations. What did happen, though, was the ports in the south west - Bristol, in particular - became a 'refuelling' stop for slave boats between western africa and the us. In terms of welfare, there's something of a public backlash here against people that are perceived to just drain the system, stay at home, have 5 children, live off of the benefits, while the kids all have iPhones and the parents smoke 20 a day and get through a pack of tennents super a day. So this is part of the reason for the introduction of the 'work for benefits' scheme that the govt is looking to introduce. Slavery was practiced in British territories, especially in the West Indies. This was later replaced with indentured servitude when slavery was abolished in the British Empire. To say nothing of the millions of occupied people that died during the two world wars as pawns in Britain's game of thrones with Eastern Europe. Britain's game of thrones with Eastern Europe? Please, check up on what actually happened and then get back to us. It was a *world* war, to stop the imperial machinations of the germans (not eastern europe) and their allies. They were invading countries left right and centre, literally, and it was up to the remaining free countries to do something about it and stop them. It was nothing about a 'game of thrones' - I can only congratulate you though on at least keeping your glib reply relevant to pop culture by throwing in a massively overquoted line from a tv show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koalabazooka Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 The vast majority did. After ww2, we obviously had something of a labour gap, and so men were recruited from all available places - largely from the west indies and south asia. There was a slavery industry in Britain, but I'm not sure it was quite the same scale as over there. For starters, a lot of slave in the US were working on plantations and things, right? We didn't really have vast swathes of unused land to make these plantations. What did happen, though, was the ports in the south west - Bristol, in particular - became a 'refuelling' stop for slave boats between western africa and the us. In terms of welfare, there's something of a public backlash here against people that are perceived to just drain the system, stay at home, have 5 children, live off of the benefits, while the kids all have iPhones and the parents smoke 20 a day and get through a pack of tennents super a day. So this is part of the reason for the introduction of the 'work for benefits' scheme that the govt is looking to introduce. Britain's game of thrones with Eastern Europe? Please, check up on what actually happened and then get back to us. It was a *world* war, to stop the imperial machinations of the germans (not eastern europe) and their allies. They were invading countries left right and centre, literally, and it was up to the remaining free countries to do something about it and stop them. It was nothing about a 'game of thrones' - I can only congratulate you though on at least keeping your glib reply relevant to pop culture by throwing in a massively overquoted line from a tv show. It was a game of thrones. The monarchs of Europes sacrificed the lives of tens of millions in a power struggle during WWI. During WWII, it was the exact same situation, but with dictators instead of kings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 It was a game of thrones. The monarchs of Europes sacrificed the lives of tens of millions in a power struggle during WWI. During WWII, it was the exact same situation, but with dictators instead of kings. Face it; human beings are imperialistic by nature. How many innocent people died because Abraham Lincoln wanted to hold on to half of his empire? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 Face it; human beings are imperialistic by nature. How many innocent people died because Abraham Lincoln wanted to hold on to half of his empire? WSS That's like, deep bro, woooohhhh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 25, 2013 Report Share Posted October 25, 2013 That's like, deep bro, woooohhhh Then maybe you can describe the big difference? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted October 25, 2013 Report Share Posted October 25, 2013 I don't know about imperialistic by nature - perhaps just greedy. This is the main reason communism doesn't work IMO, and why society should be a restrained capitalism, while still maintaining a high level of care for those not able to look after themselves. Wishful thinking, perhaps, but most countries are at least aiming at something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted October 25, 2013 Report Share Posted October 25, 2013 Face it; human beings are imperialistic by nature. How many innocent people died because Abraham Lincoln wanted to hold on to half of his empire? WSS You could add that to about anything, how many people died because a few people wanted to create their own empire(american revolution)? During the height of the "Slave Trade" england was sending guns and money to Africa in exchange for slaves that where sent to the colonies(later US), that then sent goods such as tobaco and cotton back to england so most of the slaves never made it to england. Also agree with chris about people being greedy in nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 25, 2013 Report Share Posted October 25, 2013 Sad no argument here. I do think its semantics if we want to argue greed verses imperialism but whatever... Not just the American Revolution but every revolution millions die so somebody can put up a different colored flag and change the name of the towns and streets. It's what we do. Human beings and very similarly most living creatures.and let's face it boys and girls 99 percent of the time its the side with the most modern weapon system. Whether its clubs against bronze swards against long bows against crossbows against muskets against rifles against Gatling guns against hand grenades against air strikes against atomic weapons.... Or Blue Jays chasing away Cardinals that chased away Robins that chased away sparrows... but semantics or not you and Chris are also correct that it is our never ending quest to find a balance between socialism and capitalism. My opinion is that socialism is almost always used as an excuse for one side to grab power. I do believe that the leaders of a socialist or communist revolution wind up living like Napoleon and snowball if you remember Animal Farm. Many people say that's allegorical to the Russian Revolution but it sure looks like every revolution to me. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted October 25, 2013 Report Share Posted October 25, 2013 Too true, the problem with most revolutions is the group who lead the revolution and have the necessary traits to organize and lead don't necessarily have the skills needed to govern. You also find that in many new dictatorships that even if that first dictator is able to govern that doesn't mean that his son or his selected replacement is able to govern. There is also the time factor, if the US revolution took place today the common people wouldn't be satisfied with taking 5 years from the end of the revolution till the drafting/ratifiying of the constitution, it would have likely fallen back into revolution such as seen in Egypt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 25, 2013 Report Share Posted October 25, 2013 Not only that but the people with the charisma personality and strength of will to lead a revolution are really the type of people who want to be on equal footing with the common man. Humility and leadership don't seem like compatible traits. WSS like Springsteen says, poor man wanna be rich rich man wanna be king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.