Thread: What if...Britan never rose?

Britain has given the world a GREAT amount of technology and have devloped morals moreso than the rest of the world and have taught them. We had trades runnning all over the world when the British Empire run, giving foreign countries money to build their countries by buying their goods. We have fought off a lot of opression, Napoelean, Hitler, Kaiser Wilhelm, provided help to Korea, British red cross is everywhere in the world where help is needed. Ever since the economic cost of WWII (and money going to help rebuild Europe after WWII) crippled us and the British Empire's influence and commonweath has fallen, the world has since begun going downhill. We are no longer able to be a strong influence now America rules. The terrorist sistuation has been accelerated by the USA and our leaders are doing nothing for Britian no longer and the UK's society is breaking down. The nation that gave the world so much is being eaten inside out. There are mosques within the UK that have terrorists preaching to go out and murder innocent Britons. There are hundreds of raids undertaken by the police to stop terrorists before they carry out their plans. The UK is losing money fast, our governments profit/loss is very close and if the rush of cash does not stop we'll not have enough to pay off our debts, and then, goodnight Great Britain.

We gave given the world so much and have always put out for the world. At times we've not been as good as gold but have been far better and more efficient rulers of the world that the US has been. Since they took over, the world now has many countries with nuclear weapons and the US threatens invasion now instead of democracy. The world is in grave danger-if terrorists gain nuclear capabilty, they won't hesitate to launch, then you'll have the counterstrike program THAT STILL EXISTS of the US and Russia who will launch.

What would the world be like today if the world never saw Britain rise?

If it weren't for Christianity then the UK would have never rose in the first place. The Holy Isles of the west-everyone flocked here after they learned of Christ. And why? Why were we the front of invasion throughout history?

Well if the UK had never rose then the USA wouldn't never have rose neither, would it then? So you wouldn't have to fret over the Americans ruling the world because the Americans would be Spanish, innit? And those Spaniards, being an indolent, immoral lot, lacking Britsh moral fibre, and eating tortillas instead of weetabix would have let things truly go down the drain.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Well if the UK had never rose then the USA wouldn't never have rose neither, would it then? So you wouldn't have to fret over the Americans ruling the world because the Americans would be Spanish, innit? And those Spaniards, being an indolent, immoral lot, lacking Britsh moral fibre, and eating tortillas instead of weetabix would have let things truly go down the drain.

ROTFL!

Willmer, I'd suggest you read Jared Diamond's Guns, germs and steel as it effectively answers your counter-factual/hypothetical. Both the colonisation of the New World and the Industrial Revolution were going to happen anyway, thanks to the technological advancement and political rivalries in Europe. France and Spain would probably have fought it out for North America, and Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal and Italy (at the very least) would have joined them not just in colonial ventures, but technoclogical ones as well. After all, that's also what they did in our current history.

As a Scot, an Englisman, a Brit and a European, I would like to dissociate myself from svwilmer's rambling, ungrammatical, jingoistic, ill researched, poorly argued, ethnocentric tirade, masquerading as a serious post.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

As a Scot, an Englisman, a Brit and a European, I would like to dissociate myself from svwilmer's rambling, ungrammatical, jingoistic, ill researched, poorly argued, ethnocentric tirade, masquerading as a serious post.

Its not rambling Ophiolite, it was a quick 'what if' based on my young interpretation of the world. If you're so smart, why don't you take the responsibility given your wisdom and clean up my post so that the true meaning can be potrayed. You've made my comment appear rambling, so now you've got to tell me why. Thank you Ophiolite. If you don't reply I'll lose respect for you currently and I'd rather not, I look up to your posts and to your responses, so please enlighten us.

PS it was England and England alone that gave birth to this world. Stand up for it Ophiolite and stop making us look weak, we are the British and we have to stick together. Come on Ophiolite that was a really low blow. I'm really upset by that Ophiolite. I hope you can redeem yourself, you better or to me your no Briton.

Oh and you can't be a Scotsman or Englander. Only one.

MAKE WAY FOR THE RETURN

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Its not rambling Ophiolite, it was a quick 'what if' based on my young interpretation of the world. If you're so smart, why don't you take the responsibility given your wisdom and clean up my post so that the true meaning can be potrayed. You've made my comment appear rambling, so now you've got to tell me why. Thank you Ophiolite.

You have singled out the adjective rambling, arguably the least of my complaints. It was the latent xenophobia I found unappealing, so I launched into a trademark concatenation of qualifiers.

If you are interested I think I can package the whole a lot more attractively. It really does lack structure. Look, for one thing, at the length of the first paragraph. Also, what is your central argument? That may be clear to you, but not to your readers.

I'm returning home now to attempt further recovery from a virulent stomach bug. I shall have a go a rewriting your opening post. Let me know if you would like that posted in the thread, or via pm.

Again, my main reaction is against the inherent xenophobia. We don't need that in the UK at present. Nor do we need whitewashes of Britain's colonial past.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Its not rambling Ophiolite, it was a quick 'what if' based on my young interpretation of the world. If you're so smart, why don't you take the responsibility given your wisdom and clean up my post so that the true meaning can be potrayed. You've made my comment appear rambling, so now you've got to tell me why. Thank you Ophiolite.

You have singled out the adjective rambling, arguably the least of my complaints. It was the latent xenophobia I found unappealing, so I launched into a trademark concatenation of qualifiers.

If you are interested I think I can package the whole a lot more attractively. It really does lack structure. Look, for one thing, at the length of the first paragraph. Also, what is your central argument? That may be clear to you, but not to your readers.

I'm returning home now to attempt further recovery from a virulent stomach bug. I shall have a go a rewriting your opening post. Let me know if you would like that posted in the thread, or via pm.

Again, my main reaction is against the inherent xenophobia. We don't need that in the UK at present. Nor do we need whitewashes of Britain's colonial past.

Thanks. I'm with the old saying

'To know where one is going, one must know where one came from'

'Life goes in circles'

Oh and by the way, sorry about that bug, there is aterrible irony about Britons when they leave, if only for a short period of time. Hope you get better soon.

PS, I'm not afraid of foreign countries we still today have a good amount of technology and relations with the world and are still 4th superpower of the world. I don't need evidence to state a fact. Britain is the single greatest existence in this world, giving the world a great many thing, thats why I posed the hypothetical question, 'What if Britain never rose?' A theory of if the world would be better or worse if it had not risen.

Hmm

The partition of India would not have happened, the division of North and South Sudan would not have happened, there would be no Israel, the Middle east and Africa would not have been arbitarily divided into random countries.

Originally Posted by samcdkey

Hmm

The partition of India would not have happened, the division of North and South Sudan would not have happened, there would be no Israel, the Middle east and Africa would not have been arbitarily divided into random countries.

The world would be at the mercy of Islam?

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Originally Posted by samcdkey

Hmm

The partition of India would not have happened, the division of North and South Sudan would not have happened, there would be no Israel, the Middle east and Africa would not have been arbitarily divided into random countries.

The world would be at the mercy of Islam?

There were Dutch and French and Portuguese colonialists too.

As for mercy, a country that began the depopulation and occupation of two huge landmasses, ie America/Canada and Australia, and used a policy of Divide and Rule on all its colonies in racist ways such that natives suffered at the expense of white men, fueling all major conflicts in the world today, is in no position to determine the meaning of mercy.

Originally Posted by samcdkey

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Originally Posted by samcdkey

Hmm

The partition of India would not have happened, the division of North and South Sudan would not have happened, there would be no Israel, the Middle east and Africa would not have been arbitarily divided into random countries.

The world would be at the mercy of Islam?

There were Dutch and French and Portuguese colonialists too.

As for mercy, a country that began the depopulation and occupation of two huge landmasses, ie America/Canada and Australia, and used a policy of Divide and Rule on all its colonies in racist ways such that natives suffered at the expense of white men, fueling all major conflicts in the world today, is in no position to determine the meaning of mercy.

Opinion noted, position overruled. Would they be at mercy. If you can't answer the question just don't that way we don't waste precious time arguimng over what we meant :-D

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Opinion noted, position overruled. Would they be at mercy. If you can't answer the question just don't that way we don't waste precious time arguimng over what we meant :-D

Do you think the Dutch, French, Portuguese and all such would just pack their bags and go home?

As for mercy of Islam, I think the Ottoman Empire was already falling apart when the British came in. Perhaps the Caliphate would still be around and we would not be having the executions of homosexuals and stoning for adultery.

Originally Posted by samcdkey

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Opinion noted, position overruled. Would they be at mercy. If you can't answer the question just don't that way we don't waste precious time arguimng over what we meant :-D

Do you think the Dutch, French, Portuguese and all such would just pack their bags and go home?

As for mercy of Islam, I think the Ottoman Empire was already falling apart when the British came in. Perhaps the Caliphate would still be around and we would not be having the executions of homosexuals and stoning for adultery.

Like I say, the world could have been better off without us and it could have not been better of without us, thats the point of this open ended post

I briefly read the original post and thought crap, Britain was some sort of world power for about 70 years or so. Both before and after that short era we were close to being overrun, on both occasions it was the use of foreign troops that came to the rescue. Britain is a third rate country that got lucky for a while.

You post was amusing


Did you hear of the story of the Pirate and the Emperor?

In a nutshell an Emperor is a Pirate, but massive scale gives him legitimacy he should Not have.

So you could almost replace the British Flag with the Black and Skull Pirate flag. Theres a lot of great things about Britain, but the flip side of that coin is that is was also the largest Pirate/criminal organization on the face of the earth (Opium Wars, ressource pludering, etc).

Two things are being put down in this world.

1: Britain
2: Christ

Originally Posted by Megabrain

I briefly read the original post and thought crap, Britain was some sort of world power for about 70 years or so. Both before and after that short era we were close to being overrun, on both occasions it was the use of foreign troops that came to the rescue. Britain is a third rate country that got lucky for a while.

You don't defend your own country? I must be the last true Briton on this Earth.

Here a funny video about pirates and emperors

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdYZCcATg3Q

Originally Posted by svwillmer

You don't defend your own country? I must be the last true Briton on this Earth.

Or the only one ever. Nobody I know of from the home nations has any patriotic pride about 'Britain' - we're pretty much English or Irish or Scottish or Welsh.

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio

Originally Posted by svwillmer

You don't defend your own country? I must be the last true Briton on this Earth.

Or the only one ever. Nobody I know of from the home nations has any patriotic pride about 'Britain' - we're pretty much English or Irish or Scottish or Welsh.

Wierd

I appreciate the discussion has moved on, but I wrote this on Friday and can only now post it.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

PS it was England and England alone that gave birth to this world. Stand up for it Ophiolite and stop making us look weak, we are the British and we have to stick together. Come on Ophiolite that was a really low blow. I'm really upset by that Ophiolite. I hope you can redeem yourself, you better or to me your no Briton.

Oh and you can't be a Scotsman or Englander. Only one.

SV, youth is always an adequate excuse for foolish comments, but it an excuse that fails in time. Let us examine your statements here, one by painful one.

It was England and England alone that gave birth to this world.

Ah, the British National Party would be proud of you. They have always equated England and Britain.
Even as metaphor and hyperbole your statement is nonsense. Let us list a handful of casual examples:
The discovery of this world: Cristobal Colon, Vasco da Gama – do these names mean anything to you?
The birth of agriculture: the Nile, the Indo-Gangetic Plain, the Yellow River, the Tigris-Euphrates valley.
The emergence of the first science: ancient Greece
The establishment of a legal system that has survived two millennia: the Romans

I’ll certainly grant you England’s powerful role in the implementation of the slave trade. Those fine civic buildings in Bristol and Liverpool and Glasgow and Manchester, paid for by the sweat of a people wrenched from their native homes and carried across an ocean. (That they were sold into slavery by their own does not constitute much of a defence.)
And I would also have to give full credit to the English for introducing the concept of exploitation of the masses in those dark, satanic mills. Of course, today we are much more discrete about that, preferring to oppress mere children at a continent or two’s distance, so we can wear the latest chic footwear.

Now of course you can make an argument for some of the positive things achieved by England, but to claim as you did that England and England alone gave birth to this world, is palpable nonsense.

Stand up for it Ophiolite and stop making us look weak
You flatter me with as much justification as your other arguments. England is quite capable of looking weak, or strong, without my efforts. I never have, and I never shall, stand up for a country. At the risk of sounding tediously self righteous, I shall stand up for what I perceive to be right. The attitude of ‘my country right or wrong’ should have been discredited a thousand times, yet it seems every generation and every individual has to relearn that painful lesson. Regrettably some never do.

we are the British and we have to stick together.
Really? And why do we have to stick together? Do you think I have more in common with a lager lout spewing his guts out at 3.00am in the morning in a Spanish holiday resort, than with – for example – Pendragon, a highly suspect continental. I mean those nasty Dutch decimated our fleet in the Thames estuary not too long ago – not that we like to mention it – especially in history classes at school. Better to focus on the Spanish Armada and Nelson at Trafalgar.
Well curiously, if Pendragon can forgive me my Englishness, I’ll stick with him rather than the lager lout.

Come on Ophiolite that was a really low blow.
Then it hit where I was aiming. If you wish to preach xenophobia you must accept the consequences.

Oh and you can't be a Scotsman or Englander. Only one.
Crap. My mother was English – I am a Man of Kent (Not a Kentish Man. If you are unaware of the distinction, perhaps you need more lessons in the Art of Being English.) My father was Scottish. I am Scottish. I am English. I am British. I am European. I am a homo sapiens. I am an inhabitant of a small, insignificant planet orbiting a G2 main sequence star, and I am not about to get violently emotional and reactionary over an accident of birth.

SV, I have no wish to alienate you. If you have found something of value in my previous posts I hope that one thing that emerged and perhaps attracted you was my honesty. I do call it as I see it. That is what I have done here. Your thesis has more holes than Swiss cheese.

Willmer; To an extent, I have to agree with you on Influence and an awakening of society around the world;

The British Empire (Mega), 1497 to really today, peaked in the early 20th century. The influence was felt on every continent, on over a quarter of the land mass and about a quarter of the people, then living. Legal and governmental systems, military education, sports and the spread of the English Language, just a few of the contributions. These influences continue in each nation today, including the USA where each state legal system has been taken from British Common Law in part and two States are ruled under that law. (Ophi) Where English people may not have invented ever thing, they certainly are responsible for taking these ideas to people around the world.

Slavery and slave trade, a very common practice was banned by the British in 1807 and enforced by the dominant maritime force, which was for centuries. They outlawed it in 1834, setting the stage fro what is today.

Having said this Willmer, the UK has changed in its philosophical and ideology over the past 50 years in particular. Not from England and privy to daily media, I can only address from little I see in my media..US.
England has and continues to move into a socialistic state, as has much of Europe. Many of the problems you see or foresee, may come from these changes and probably with in your own understanding of History, which to a person is in their lifetime....

Originally Posted by jackson33

(Ophi) Where English people may not have invented ever thing, they certainly are responsible for taking these ideas to people around the world.

I would agree completely with that. It is not, however, what SV was claiming. His claims were either inappropriate and pointless hyperbole, or else they were poorly informed belief.
The present state of the world, good and bad, social, scientific, cultural and artistic, is the result of contributions, intentional and accidental, directed and arbitrary, from many cvilisations, countries, ethnicities and times. To single out one nation for the credit (or the blame) is unwise, unrealistic, and ultimately damaging.

Ophiolite said:intentional and accidental

Exactly. A large proportion of the good "The Britons" spread, have been by accident. They fought against the boers in the anglo-boer war and when they could not beat us down, they put our women and children in concentration camps and did all manner of horrible things to them, like including broken glass etc into their meals, killing many of them. Wake up, fool :|

Its always interested me in how people perceive history. IMO, history should be understood, from its time and was was going on in that period.

Henry VIII (1506-1541), made no bones about building an empire (set the framework) and the world was coming out of the *Medieval Period*. There were over a 100 wars or major battles in each the 16th-17th and 18th centuries (15-16-1700's). The rise of Islam and the Ottoman Empire...

Influence of society, took little effort and whether good or bad was not what we call these today. Then, there is what that influence was built on by the society which received it. South Africa, Canada, US, Australia, India seem to have done just fine, just as the UK group.

I am not going as far as Willmer, but those influences offered by England, regardless of motive (and there were some gloomy motives) would seem to have a place in World History, where as as a positive, they do not exist.
My history books, at least US History and I suggest Kalster's, show a much different and negative picture.

Ophi, I understand your point. "Worlds only Super Power"-"US and its Capitalistic/Free Trade Influence", just a couple things that worry me every time I hear them. Factually however, one Nation on many occasions has influenced in evil ways the Worlds society. Germany, Germany again, Russia (USSR) and Japan come to mind. Whether I like it or not Free Market Capitalism, also has had a great deal of influence and accepted for both its good or bad traits and is a motivated structure. A hundred years from now, it may be classified a destructive tool, but whether or not the US will deserve the Credit/Blame for its spread. The British Empire was long, influential and for the most part constructive.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Ophiolite said:intentional and accidental

Exactly. A large proportion of the good "The Britons" spread, have been by accident. They fought against the boers in the anglo-boer war and when they could not beat us down, they put our women and children in concentration camps and did all manner of horrible things to them, like including broken glass etc into their meals, killing many of them. Wake up, fool :|

They didn't do that did they?! Show me the evidence of that the same as the accusations in Iraq and I'll believe you. That in mind however South Africa hasn't really contributed much to the world.

south africa gave me a job for 5½ years when i couldn't find one in europe

Kalster, don't forget why they call it history -- because there's his story, and then there's his story i was taught that glass in the food thing as well. From a history syllabus mediated by the Afrikaans nationalist government...

... The other side of the story is that the boers were blowing up the railways to cut british supply lines. The same supply lines used to deliver food to the concentration camps. The glass came from the train windows being blown out...

... Who are you going to give that spoilt food to? Your own troops? No. Give it to the prisoners and let them pick the glass out. Think about it, it would make more sense to poison it.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

They didn't do that did they?! Show me the evidence of that the same as the accusations in Iraq and I'll believe you. That in mind however South Africa hasn't really contributed much to the world.

At times SV, your naivety is charming. I don't know about the broken glass, but the concentration camps were real.
Jackson, your point about viewing the history and the motives in context is exactly right. In hindsight we might deplore (or praise) a particular action, but the motivation/justification for that action has to be seen in the light of the times. The British in their Empire building days were fostering commercial growth at the end of a gun barrel, but they also genuinely believed they were superior to the natives they were exploiting and that they were bringing them the benefits of civilisation. (This isn't sounding familiar to anyone who has studied US foreign policy over the last couple of decades, is it?)
SV, there is no doubt that Britain did a lot to shape the world we live in - some good, some bad - but the quality and quantity of her influence is much, much less than your opening post claims.

Kalster, don't forget why they call it history -- because there's his story, and then there's his story i was taught that glass in the food thing as well. From a history syllabus mediated by the Afrikaans nationalist government...

I don't doubt that at all.

The point I was trying to make, is that a huge portion of the eventual positive influence of the Britons on the world, came by accident and schwillmer is making it out as if they did all the good things by design.

I also know and understand the incredible atrocities perpetrated by the Afrikaans people during the apartheid (which means separateness, if you didn’t know) era. They acted with much the same mentality as the Britons did. It happened much more recently than the British wrongdoings, so the sores are still raw for some. I am entirely ashamed of this part of my history, but at the same time I can understand the mechanisms behind this kind of thing. Many of my family members were and some still are raging racists. A lot, by my experience, has to do with simple ignorance, that can be very enraging sometimes.

We gave given the world so much and have always put out for the world. At times we've not been as good as gold but have been far better and more efficient rulers of the world that the US has been. Since they took over, the world now has many countries with nuclear weapons and the US threatens invasion now instead of democracy. The world is in grave danger-if terrorists gain nuclear capabilty, they won't hesitate to launch, then you'll have the counterstrike program THAT STILL EXISTS of the US and Russia who will launch.

Well, given that "Pax Americana" began at almost exactly the same time as the Nuclear Bomb was invented............. it's hardly fair to compare the rate at which third world countries develop them now to the rate at which it happened under "Pax Brittanica".

Otherwise I find your post interesting. The bulk of the industrial revolution began in England. I'm not sure whether legal concepts like habeas corpus, or the presumption of innocence actually began there or not, but most of the legal rules that we know and love in the USA were inherited from English Common Law.

In areas that Spain colonized, they use legal systems derived from the Napoleanic code, which is based on the Roman legal system, and actually doesn't have a presumption of innocence in them. The difference in legal systems can be seen as almost the very core of why latin America is what it is: a big cesspool with rampant corruption throughout every level of government, and very little national identity.

Originally Posted by kojax

In areas that Spain colonized, they use legal systems derived from the Napoleanic code, which is based on the Roman legal system, and actually doesn't have a presumption of innocence in them. The difference in legal systems can be seen as almost the very core of why latin America is what it is: a big cesspool with rampant corruption throughout every level of government, and very little national identity.

Interesting notion, but interesting only if there were a difference between the ex-colonies of Spain and Britain - but in Africa and Asia, former British colonies also seem to instantiate the sort of criticisms you level against former Spanish colonies. Also, if the Spanish influence led to a descendant of the Napoleonic Code, then one might presume that Spain itself also has a similar system. Or is this not the case?

former British colonies also seem to instantiate the sort of criticisms you level against former Spanish colonies.

Yeah, probably the most fundamental difference between the USA/Canada and most of Latin America is that we eradicated the indigenous population instead of trying to integrate it.


So, I see your point. Maybe if Spanish settlers had taken the same approach, more of Spain's culture would have made it into those colonies for us to see.

Also, if the Spanish influence led to a descendant of the Napoleonic Code, then one might presume that Spain itself also has a similar system. Or is this not the case?

I'm pretty sure Spain has a presumption of innocence now, but they don't appear to have had it during the time when they were busy colonizing. Saying they got it late isn't the same as saying they never got it at all. The point is that England had it much earlier, and that's why we had it so early in our own history here in the USA.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Well if the UK had never rose then the USA wouldn't never have rose neither, would it then? So you wouldn't have to fret over the Americans ruling the world because the Americans would be Spanish, innit? And those Spaniards, being an indolent, immoral lot, lacking Britsh moral fibre, and eating tortillas instead of weetabix would have let things truly go down the drain.

Don't they eat Cheerios? There's basically no difference in that case. Besides, tacos aren't the only thing they eat, their diet is full of organic/somewhat healthy foods last I checked, which was not too long ago, and even the tacos are healthy unless they're from Taco Bell.

"Indolent," because I'm sure the American economy hasn't profited at all from having them take lower-paying jobs.

"Immoral," have you even actually met more than a few Spanish guys? And not the ones on TV.

"Lacking British moral fiber," what the bloody hell are you talking about? Moral fiber can't be British, it's just moral fiber. Not every single British person can have loads of moral fiber. Though I don't mean that in an offensive manner. Every continent can can have just about equal moral fiber.

Harry, I was joshing, being ironical etc. Can't really tell if you are too or are you serious?

If you are serious I must respond. If not no need to read further.

Don't they eat Cheerios? There's basically no difference in that case. Besides, tacos aren't the only thing they eat, their diet is full of organic/somewhat healthy foods last I checked, which was not too long ago, and even the tacos are healthy unless they're from Taco Bell.

Taco Bell as far as I know has nothing to do with Mexico, Spain or Mexican Americans and much to do with heart disease and college students on a small budget.. We like to go to La Cueva which serves more or less authentic Mexican food, and is in the Hispanic area, just down the street.

"Indolent," because I'm sure the American economy hasn't profited at all from having them take lower-paying jobs.

Now who's being ironic?

"Immoral," have you even actually met more than a few Spanish guys? And not the ones on TV.

I haven't met any of the TV ones. I was in love with Joan Baez once but she never knew. I met lots of Spanish guys in Spain, and lots of Mexicans in Mexico, and lots of Mexican-Americans in my office building where they empty the trash and hoover the carpets. Also lots of them on the bus. We bought engineered plant equipment from a fabricator in Veracruz. They all seemed to be moral.

"Lacking British moral fiber," what the bloody hell are you talking about? Moral fiber can't be British, it's just moral fiber. Not every single British person can have loads of moral fiber.

Harry, this is where the Weetabix comes in. It's full of fiber and the wheat comes from Canada which is full of moral farmers, except the ones who sold out to big ethanol. So technically you're right, it's Canadian moral fibre.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Harry, I was joshing, being ironical etc. Can't really tell if you are too or are you serious?

If you are serious I must respond. If not no need to read further.

Sorry, I just know many Spanish people, there's a large population where I live. knowing them all, I got really defensive, and I couldn't really tell you were just joshing.

I especially liked that Canadian moral fiber part by the way.

Phew, that's a relief.

Originally Posted by Harry

"Indolent," because I'm sure the American economy hasn't profited at all from having them take lower-paying jobs.

Labor is never really in short supply. Jobs are sometimes, but labor never is, not in the modern world. Besides that we're not getting Mexico's first rate educated people either.

So, no, they don't help us. At least not nearly as much as they drag us down.

"Immoral," have you even actually met more than a few Spanish guys? And not the ones on TV.

I speak fluent spanish and I've met quite a few. They love their families. I'll grant them that, and they take care of their elders too.

On the other hand, they have almost no notion of holding police responsible when they take bribes, or any government official for that matter. All of their notions of morality stop at the family, and never make it up to the institutional level.

"Lacking British moral fiber," what the bloody hell are you talking about? Moral fiber can't be British, it's just moral fiber. Not every single British person can have loads of moral fiber. Though I don't mean that in an offensive manner. Every continent can can have just about equal moral fiber.

British morals and Latin American morals are a very different set of morals. The British focus a lot on how the community should be run, and what to do in order to promote order and punish anarchy. Sometimes they may take it a little too far.

Latins focus on being nice people. They're very good in that area, but they let everyone the least bit threatening walk all over them and then wonder why they can't afford to eat.

Originally Posted by kojax

British morals and Latin American morals are a very different set of morals. The British focus a lot on how the community should be run, and what to do in order to promote order and punish anarchy. Sometimes they may take it a little too far.

Latins focus on being nice people. They're very good in that area, but they let everyone the least bit threatening walk all over them and then wonder why they can't afford to eat.

Idiotic piece of stereotyping.

Originally Posted by kojax

In areas that Spain colonized, they use legal systems derived from the Napoleanic code, which is based on the Roman legal system, and actually doesn't have a presumption of innocence in them. The difference in legal systems can be seen as almost the very core of why latin America is what it is: a big cesspool with rampant corruption throughout every level of government, and very little national identity.

I doubt the legal system would have such an effect. After all, Quebec uses a legal system based on the French civic law, (pre-cursor to the Napoleonic) and we aren't a cesspool rampant with corruption lol.

I have an intense dislike of Nationilism since as a member of the anglo minority of Quebec I have often been the target of nationilistic rantings. A couple of months ago the seperatist attempted to table a motion in parliament to take away the right of anglos to run for public office <.<. It is never conductive to talk about one people being better than another, because you can always just keep tracking backwards through history and all you end up with is that we all came from the same source and are essentially the same.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Originally Posted by kojax

British morals and Latin American morals are a very different set of morals. The British focus a lot on how the community should be run, and what to do in order to promote order and punish anarchy. Sometimes they may take it a little too far.

Latins focus on being nice people. They're very good in that area, but they let everyone the least bit threatening walk all over them and then wonder why they can't afford to eat.

Idiotic piece of stereotyping.

It's the same kind of sterio-typing that assumes a driver with more tickets on their record will be more likely to get in an accident. When looking at a large group of people, it's not steriotyping to observe that a disproportionate number of them behave a certain way. That's just facing truth.

Now, if I assumed every individual mexican I met was going to be a paradigm example of their culture, that would be steriotyping in the negative sense. Individuals don't always conform to their culture's values. They just often do.

To the OP.

You should watch a TV series called "Mongrel Nation", presented by Eddie Izzard. That will teach you a lot about who the 'British' really are, historically speaking.

here is an example about our language:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5XIA0oKHNM

"You should watch a TV series called "Mongrel Nation", presented by Eddie Izzard. "

THanks its a great way to present the past (entertaining)

If British Empire never rose.....then today French or German Empire would be much more popular than British, or that we would be living in it today.

btw, B/E ftw.

if britian never rose...i enjoy hypotheticals the isles would have been colonized either by a nordic country of France, spain would most likely have still declined in thge 16th century and the sweds, dutch, and french would have dominated the east coast of North America. The French not having the push factors and a lack of population on the other two suggest that North America today would have a much smaller european population. not to mention none of us would exist!

If I may add my thoughts to the discussion without being disemboweled by your deft use of words.

I believe that Britain has contributed a great deal to the world, it has conquered yes but has brought modernisation to many of the country's it occupied however briefly.

You could argue that it was the British who started the slave trade and I hope I'm not perceived in the slightest bit racist when I say this but the slave trade was already rife amongst African tribes long before the British arrived there. The British simply became a mutually beneficial (not for the slaves but for the tribes that had enslaved other tribes) trade off.

Britain has fought for its allies and has always had a unique eye on conflict rising to challenges both big and small. Even when greatly outnumbered in both World Wars Britain fought for the liberation of France and refused to yield long before the Americans came to Europe's aid.

I am ashamed to say that in recent times the more noble of British traits have somewhat disappeared to be replaced by a thuggish society where only a few vestiges of these morals still hold true.

As for Americans I feel that in their own way they do try to better the world. Being a comparatively new country they do not have the collective experience of much older nations which is why they appear to be so gung-ho. They should not be disregarded, with the future they will become a much greater force. These wars are making them learn through mistakes.

In conclusion I am proud of the nation born of many other nations, it has done many things to be in awe of. It must be remembered however that so have many other countries.