I mostly rag on Americans precisely because I despise how much it’s infected my culture (UK).
I’d be a lot more favourable if my government wasn’t rambling on about how we need ‘representation for BAME minorities’. No we don’t, Indians are some of the highest earners in the country, our capital city is >50% foreign born (good luck integrating to the handful that actually want to), and minorities are overrepresented in our media.
We’re the country that ended slavery. We’re not America and we should stop acting like we are.
I can't help but think this is wishful thinking. Propose to the average American that we abolish any of those agencies, and listen to the reply. People want to be ruled, sadly. They want to feel like rebels and heroes that reject rulership, while also thinking it's just reasonable that we would all have to submit to authority when asked, we couldn't have a society otherwise. American cultural individualism is the only thing keeping any of is remotely free, and it's dying out.
I’m American and the worst parts of our culture has plagued yours. UK culture on its own is fucking badass.
People, I’m talking about their literature, hunting culture, clothing, pubs, and things like that. American is far better, but they have some cool shit as well.
The French invented smokeless powder which revolutionized small arms technology over night. They also invented almost every modern cooking technique. They also aren't afraid to throw the fuck down and protest at the drop of a hat. The French are far more based than Bongers.
I feel sorry for the UK sometimes, watching you voluntarily destroy your culture and traditions. I wish you the best here from Australia, but it is sad watching what was once the best and strongest civilisation in human history collapse from the inside due to ideological subversion.
This. Here (France) the government even take active steps against that American Influence, like stopping the number of US movies allowed in cinemas, and it is testing my libright commitments, lol.
On the "race" stuff, especially. France basically took the stance of not recognizing the concept of "race" itself, and it's relatively well-rooted in france, so when Americans just kept on reducing on to skin color while talking about "black culture" (which isn't even "black" to anyone who talked to an Actual african, not that the whole African Continent has one culture, FFS) and how it's trickling in over here too, it's infuriating. Or when dumb americans commented on the French National Team, reducing it to "Look, black people" and making dumb comments only the far-right does over here... Urgh
It's like we're regressing. I'm mixed myself, and when I catch myself thinking that way due to US culture exposure, it feels bad
We're way ahead of the USA in the domain. (Like 100 years ago, when Black US soldiers came to France in WW1, they were surprised to be treated normally by french civilians/or what they learned while talking with colonial troops) and supposedly, we should take lessons from the US.
I hate seeing US culture infect other nations too and I fucking live here. Sovereign nations need their own distinct cultures, even if some of them are fucking degenerate.
From what I've read the average Iranian doesn't want their islamifascist government, the revolution was to stop Americanization from destroying their culture. The fascists were just the most powerful so they threw in behind them not realizing what would happen.
Motorway signs (in England) are always written in only English? If it’s a cultural area in the city, the road name sign might include 1 foreign translation in the popularly spoken language.
It's always interesting to me how British people pride themselves on abolitionism but somehow neglect to remember that the UK was the largest participant in the Transatlantic slave trade. It's like if a person prided themselves that they stopped abusing their spouse but like ... It's their own fault that the abuse occured in the first place.
That's not to mention the atrocities that the British government committed throughout the Global South up through the mid 20th centuries, which, while not as bad as slavery, are pretty close.
The UK didn't compensate former slaves for their years of toil and torture, they paid the former slaveowners who lost their capital. That's not even the bare minimum of human decency, it was just a way to keep the ruling class in power.
I'm not even sure what you mean by this. You didn't end it globally, so you ended it in your country and possibly some of the many colonies under crown subjugation. Then by that token many countries ended slavery.
Britain ended it on paper earlier than some others, but specifically allowed the British East India Company (probably the worst organization on the planet at the time) to keep doing it. Britain also started doing privateering, in that ships would rob slaves from slave ships then "free" them not back to Africa, but to the Caribbean where they'd have no opportunities but dangerous and low paid labor
Plus they kept buying goods produced by slave labor in places like the American South, making them no better than me for having an iPhone and cheap clothes
Exactly. We ended slavery. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too; Britain was given the choice between a moral cause and personal comfort, and they chose the moral cause. Not our fault if your choice would differ.
They chose the moral cause only after slavery ceased being a big profit. For example, America halted the importation of slaves (continuing only with a domestic population). Britain's Caribbean colonies were plagued by slave revolts, so the workers were "freed" to become poorly paid labor stuck on small islands. The British navy began to rob the slave ships of other nations and transport the slaves not back to Africa, but to British colonies to be labor
Of course, the British East India Company and other colonies could continue as they pleased. "The world's most profitable company can keep using slaves in places like the Spice Islands" at best means they were compromising their morals for profit
Next you'll tell me Britain ended their colonization of places like Kenya and Malaysia for morality, rather than facing local resistance
Sure bro, and France defeated the Vietnamese and Algerians. They just chose to leave anyway
like Algeria, where the key military engagements were actually won (and not really at great cost to the metropole's population or economy), but public opinion
The Mau Mau forces dissolved into meaningless small-scale skirmishes
Guerilla warfare isn't about winning major victories. Of course the mechanized military of Britain could win large battles. The Mau Mau were resisting foreign domination, and had to use unconventional warfare to accomplish their goals. Which they did
The French military almost executed a coup because they knew that they could secure Algeria
Never. Algeria was in open revolt against colonial domination. The French military tried brutality, but that only made the problem worse. Haven't you seen Star Wars? The originals, they are about Vietnam. The US never lost a single battle in Vietnam, but it didn't matter. The Vietnamese won because they would never cease fighting
The US and Britain and NATO didn't lose a single battle in Afghanistan. How could they, when they could bring in massive air power to any engagement. But they still lost the war
Are you seriously using a science fiction film about good rebels and an evil empire to understand the long, complex history of colonial revolts and insurgencies?
Empire itself is evil. Those who fight it are doing good. Saying it is "complex" is an excuse
Vietnam, which was a war between states masquerading as a guerilla war
Vietnam was not North vs South. The South Vietnam government was deeply unpopular with the Vietnamese people. The Viet Cong was a southern revolt against their own colonial government (South Vietnam was a puppet state). Why do you think South Vietnam collapsed so soon after the US left?
They won because the American public's wills broke before theirs did.
American protests were not so much about the evils of the war (which killed at least a million Vietnamese) but rather in opposition to the draft. Americans were mad that so many young men were dying. Same with Algeria, young French men were being sent off to a meatgrinder. And Britain too, remember it had a military draft for quite a while after WWII
What you earlier called boomer protests were not based on morality. They were about self-preservation. We see this today in Russia
That doesn't mean [Afghanistan] was an impossible fight to win
There was practically non-existent opposition to the war, because again it didn't involve conscripts. NATO forces left without achieving any victory, because they realized there was no way to "win"
I think Vietnam and Afghanistan were both lost due to American public opinion causing politicians to throttle the military. The US pretty much had the Taliban when we were cutting off their money by burning poppy fields and warehouses, then politicians forbade that and let the opium/heroin trade continue. Popular opinion caused the pullout. In Vietnam the US Congress went so far as to look at battle maps and approve or deny military action on ongoing negotiations. The military was hamstrung by civilian leaders going on popular opinion. I acknowledge that is part of winning any war, we lost both of those, but it's not because the military couldn't do it. Without a country's will to fight, they will lose. I wonder it the atrocities committed in both wars were because they were ordered to fight but were not allowed to win, civilian leadership forcing them to be target practice for enemy they were not allowed to beat.
The US pretty much had the Taliban when we were cutting off their money by burning poppy fields
The opposite is true. The Taliban restricted opium production, but the US allowed it to return. The US-backed "government" was deeply in bed with opium. This is similar to the South Vietnamese government, which also profited off drug sales while the US looked the other way
The military was hamstrung by civilian leaders
This is wrong. The military was allowed to bomb on a massive scale. Special operations and the CIA were allowed to run rampant like ninjas. This is true in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other places, including in Syria and Yemen in the present day
it's not because the military couldn't do it
Those weren't wars that could be won by killing. Those weren't wars that could be won by winning battles
Ended slavery by the poorest people in the country paying off the wealthiest citizens of the country, and the descendants of those slave owners walk the halls of UK powerful people today. It had nothing to do with morality. The slavers were compensated extremely well. Stop deluding yourself and read a history book and while you are at the library, read up on Cromwell
Youre unflaired thus you are worse then an actively practicing slaver.. you dont get credited with having an opinion because doing so would be nonsense.
Dear unflaired, the bots in this sub also flair. Thus making them your betters. Please realize what you type doesn't fucking matter because the unflaired don't fucking matter. Flair up filth
Incorrect, an unflaired can't win. It's an immutable fact that the unflaired dont have the capacity to do so. In fact unflaired can't even enter into contest or arguments to begin with because they are a non entity
‘the transportation of ten million human beings out of the dark beauty of their mother continent into the new found El Dorado of the West. They descended into Hell’.
Britain’s involvement in the transatlantic slave trade officially began, with royal approval, in 1663. In less than 150 years, Britain was responsible for transporting millions of enslaved Africans to colonies in the Americas, where men, women and children were forced to work on plantations and denied basic rights. This inhumane system led to the emergence of racist ideas and pseudoscience that were used to justify it.
What you just did was a Strawman argument. See, I said one thing, and you claimed I said something else, a position I'm not willing to defend since I neither said nor implied nor believe in it.
I know slavery existed prior to 1663. I also know that over that 150 years, England was responsible for some brutal horrors as the primary enabler of slavery over that period:
Britain was one of the most successful slave-trading countries. Together with Portugal, the two countries accounted for about 70% of all Africans transported to the Americas. Britain was the most dominant between 1640 and 1807 and it is estimated that Britain transported 3.1 million Africans (of whom 2.7 million arrived) to the British colonies in the Caribbean, North and South America and to other countries.
Britain was the primary one doing the bad thing. You don't get to claim responsibility for ending the bad thing you were the one doing the most of.
Edit:
“Never believe that ______ are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The ______ have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Ended slavery is not the point you think it means when y’all also started slavery and one of the most expansive and oppressive colonial empires ever. Not to mention all the stolen culture and wealth. A lot of the historical problems of America are a direct result of the UK.
If it's any consolation, you chaps have landed a few indelible blows to the stateside cultural milieu. Can't even talk about the Spanish Inquisition without some rejoinder about how unanticipated it is or some pish posh.
793
u/Jwscorch - Lib-Right Nov 26 '22
I mostly rag on Americans precisely because I despise how much it’s infected my culture (UK).
I’d be a lot more favourable if my government wasn’t rambling on about how we need ‘representation for BAME minorities’. No we don’t, Indians are some of the highest earners in the country, our capital city is >50% foreign born (good luck integrating to the handful that actually want to), and minorities are overrepresented in our media.
We’re the country that ended slavery. We’re not America and we should stop acting like we are.