Japan's population to shrink by one-third by 2060

[Don't Kill Bill]

Brian, would you be okay with proper reparations to all the old british colonies then for the lost lives and resources then?

From whom, to whom?

It would be from people who haven't done the colonising to people who aren't colonised. It's a ludicrous idea; it would mean building a time machine and running history forwards and backwards to see which events had exactly which outcomes and effects. Otherwise you couldn't calculate the sum.

This idea is generally brought forward by people who feel victimised by history even the bits they were not alive for and used as an excuse for their own failings in the present.

 

[cinc]

Of course it is, my point was to see if he sees anything wrong with Britain's conduct in the colonies as I've explained later.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

I think he's answered that. From today’s perspective yes. At the time no, because that was the way things were done. The losers moan about it but they would probably done the same thing if they had had the chance and probably still will if they ever get the chance.

 

[cinc]

I think he's answered that. From today’s perspective yes. At the time no, because that was the way things were done. The losers moan about it but they would probably done the same thing if they had had the chance and probably still will if they ever get the chance.

Excuses. Genocide is genocide.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Excuses. Genocide is genocide.

Which Britain has never committed.

 

[cinc]

Which Britain has never committed.

I was sure you'd say that, the native americans, the tasmanian, the indians and the irish could argue with you however.

 

[Team Brian GB]

I was sure you'd say that, the native americans, the tasmanian, the indians and the irish could argue with you however.

Britain signed various treaties with the Native Americans, and went to war with them against the Americans in 1812. What we did to the Tasmanians I don't know, Australia was defacto independent in 1901 and was autonomous in domestic affairs for a very long time before that as separate states.

How we supposedly committed genocide against the Indians I do not know, the same goes for the Irish.

 

[cinc]

Britain signed various treaties with the Native Americans, and went to war with them against the Americans in 1812. What we did to the Tasmanians I don't know, Australia was defacto independent in 1901 and was autonomous in domestic affairs for a very long time before that as separate states.

How we supposedly committed genocide against the Indians I do not know, the same goes for the Irish.

Jeffery Amherst and the "black wars".

In India and IrelandBy the millions that were killed in famine that was induced by the british goverment at the time. It was a grand idea that Stalin stole and created the Holodomor in the Ukraine.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Jeffery Amherst and the "black wars".

In India and IrelandBy the millions that were killed in famine that was induced by the british goverment at the time. It was a grand idea that Stalin stole and created the Holodomor in the Ukraine.

I never took you as one for conspiracy theories, I don't know anybody in the UK or Ireland for that matter that believes in such a theory.

 

[cinc]

I never took you as one for conspiracy theories, I don't know anybody in the UK or Ireland for that matter that believes in such a theory.

"During the years of the Irish Famine, Ireland produced enough food, flax and wool not only to feed and clothe its nine million people, but enough for eighteen million.[94] A few nationalist historians[95][96] argue that in this sense the famine was artificial, not caused by a shortage of food but by the British government's choice to close the ports as had been done in previous Irish crop blights; as John Mitchell put it, "The Almighty sent the potato blight... but the English created the famine".[94]

Francis A. Boyle, a professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, finding that the government violated sections (a), (b), and (c) of Article 2 of the CPPCG and committed genocide, issued a formal legal opinion to the New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education on May 2, 1996, stating that "Clearly, during [the Irish Potato Famine] years [of] 1845 to 1850 the British government pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland with intent to destroy in substantial part the national, ethnical, and racial group commonly known as the Irish People."[97][98] Law professor Charles E. Rice of Notre Dame likewise issued a formal opinion, also based on Article 2, that the government had committed genocide.[99]"

 

[cinc]

By the way I didnt say all those were, but they all could make reasonable claims to it.

 

[Team Brian GB]

"During the years of the Irish Famine, Ireland produced enough food, flax and wool not only to feed and clothe its nine million people, but enough for eighteen million.[94] A few nationalist historians[95][96] argue that in this sense the famine was artificial, not caused by a shortage of food but by the British government's choice to close the ports as had been done in previous Irish crop blights; as John Mitchell put it, "The Almighty sent the potato blight... but the English created the famine".[94]

Francis A. Boyle, a professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, finding that the government violated sections (a), (b), and (c) of Article 2 of the CPPCG and committed genocide, issued a formal legal opinion to the New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education on May 2, 1996, stating that "Clearly, during [the Irish Potato Famine] years [of] 1845 to 1850 the British government pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland with intent to destroy in substantial part the national, ethnical, and racial group commonly known as the Irish People."[97][98] Law professor Charles E. Rice of Notre Dame likewise issued a formal opinion, also based on Article 2, that the government had committed genocide.[99]"

As I said previously, I don't know anyone in the UK or Ireland who believe that, Americans who think they're Irish on the otherhand tend to be more nationalist about Ireland than the Irish are.

 

[Excal]

I go the other route. I'm an American who thinks I'm English, and I think we should take the whole of Ireland back, as well as Australia, the United States, Canada, and India.

 

[Team Brian GB]

I go the other route. I'm an American who thinks I'm English, and I think we should take the whole of Ireland back, as well as Australia, the United States, Canada, and India.

Good luck with that.

There are many tories who have some grandiose ideas about an 'Anglo-saxon union' with the former dominions as some supposed counter weight to the EU.

 

[Excal]

Good luck with that.

There are many tories who have some grandiose ideas about an 'Anglo-saxon union' with the former dominions as some supposed counter weight to the EU.

Utterly deusional.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Utterly deusional.

Indeed so, it is one of those lazy ideas that not a lot of thought has gone into.

The United States doesn't care for such relationships, Canada borders the United States where 80% its trade goes whilst Australia and New Zealand as the crow flies are nine thousand miles away.

Most long-range projections have the UK as the most populated country in Europe halfway through this century with the best GDP per capita in Europe, microstates aside. As such we can either be outside of the EU and have less influence in Europe than Belgium enjoys now, nevermind the world, or alternatively we can be the most important country in the world's largest and most important regional bloc.

It is not that difficult a choice, it suits the likes of the US as it would mean that their main ally remains powerful on the world stage and influences the direction of affairs in Europe, as opposed to sitting on the outside beating a nationalist drum.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Excuses. Genocide is genocide.

What would you have called it before the 1940's when the term was coined?

We can do the Ghandi was sexist thing if you want. We can go through all the great people in history and find out just how unenlightened they truly were but what does that prove? We can look at all ancient civilisations and condemn them. All political movements, scientific discoveries and moral codes, they all turn out to be wrong or questionable.

Perhaps you can say why you are so fixated on justifying your rhetoric about one empire from history in the present? Should everyone hate themselves because their ancestors were monsters or just the British?

 

[VP]

And the world is better for the Pax Britannica than it would have been without it as the United Kingdom did more to create the world order we see today than any other country.

We were the leading advocate of the rule of law and liberty in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries - we exported them to our dominions across the world and embedded them into the cultures of Canada, Australia and the United States amongst other countries. It was Britain's power in the early 19th century that prevented Napoleon from accessing the Americas and it was primarily Britain that defeated Germany in the First World War - it was our navy that blockaded their ports and it was our money that financed the western front - Britain outspent the commonwealth, France, Belgium and Italy combined in that war. This is without mentioning our contribution to the Second World War - without Britain's actions over that 250 year period we would not see the likes of international tranquility and democracy spread across the world today.

We were responsible for the basis of international trade, it was our navy that defended the world's shipping lanes and guaranteed the freedom of the seas. We were the biggest advocates of international trade in the 19th and early 20th centuries which is what got it going on a significant scale and we were responsible for the governing of those seas and trade and thus we kickstarted a little known idea as international law.

This is without going into what we did in individual countries under our domain - the dominions are all amongst the wealthiest and most responsible nations in the world, no other country has ever ran colonies in such a way where as a consequence 400 million people live in as much splender today in them as in the United Kingdom itself, you only have to look at the flagship colonies of the former French Empire to see that one for yourself.

With regard to the Empire it was run in as utilitarian a fashion as an empire can be, up until the 1860s most of the empire was run by trading companies until the British Government took them over as they were concerned with their wellbeing. As such the British state never built such an empire and just inherited it, when they did take it over the acceleration of responsibility to the dominions kicked in whilst Britain started looking at offloading the rest. At the zenith of the empire in its scope and scale in the twenties was when we self-induced the end of empire with the imperial conferences and later the Statute of Westminster which meant by 1945 we were already well on the way to ended it. Whilst the French, the Portuguese and the Dutch were fighting losing battles to keep their empires - see Vietnam, Angola and Algeria, Britain gave up whole swathes of Africa and the Indian sub-continent by signing a treaty and running a flag up a pole.

Though as alluded to, perhaps the greatest British achievement on the world stage was the shaping and crafting of the United States. We built colonies in North America that were so proud of British ideals of the day that they thought Britain wasn't doing a good job of working by them. As such we were instrumental in creating a superpower in our own image which is why the Pax Americana so seemlessly took over from the Pax Britannica - it essentially is just an extension of it.


Britain's history in the era is most certainly not black or white, it is extremely complex but one thing for certain is that the world is far better off as a consequence of the Pax Britannica than if it had been without it.

Is that straight from the BNP manifesto? You forgot to mention the white man's burden...

Colonisation was and will always be an affront against basic human freedom and dignity, so it doesn't matter if the British were better than the French. The motives behind it was simply greed, nationalism and , occasionally, racism. Everything the Brits implemented in their colonies were solely for their benefit.

Just looking at the sub continent, millions died under British rule and the legacies of partition are still felt today. The African continent was carved up at a whim by Europeans, it's no coincidence there's so much conflict.

To even try and defend it is disgraceful.

 

[africanspur]

Oh wow, there are still people who defend the colonisation of Africa? And people who actually try to argue that the British Empire was a force for good? I'm gobsmacked.

Its funny how some have moved back to its all the silly little African's fault. If only we'd learnt the civility you tried to teach us and stopped being so brutish, who knows where we'd be?

The West still controls Africa. From north to south, from east to west. You just don't need military force, divide and rule, slavery and camps to do it now. Your soft power is unmatched. Though of course, the Chinese are getting in on the action now. Something the West are up in arms about because its colonial and encourages despots.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Is that straight from the BNP manifesto? You forgot to mention the white man's burden...

There was I thinking that was established history, there are such things as international law, free trade and freedom of the seas because Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries implemented the beginnings of them - do you think Napoleonic France, Imperial Germany or Nazi Germany would have been interested in such things? If Britain didn't bankroll the western front in the First World War what do you think the consequences for the world as we see it today would have been?

It is certainly complicated but Britain did more good for the world than bad, this is before we talk about the industrialisation and investment across the world - even parts of the world not in the empire such as the United States, Brazil and Argentina were dependent on British wealth for their development.

 

[adexkola]

....so the west cannot be blamed for their backwardness.

I think the argument revolves around this statement. I partially agree with it. Africa has been a victim of corrupt, non transparent government. The West, although being complicit to the rot (through predatory loans from the IMF, propping up dictatorships according to it's needs) isn't the main reason why few African countries have made forward steps after independence.

 

[VP]

There was I thinking that was established history, there are such things as international law, free trade and freedom of the seas because Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries implemented the beginnings of them - do you think Napoleonic France, Imperial Germany or Nazi Germany would have been interested in such things? If Britain didn't bankroll the western front in the First World War what do you think the consequences for the world as we see it today would have been?

It is certainly complicated but Britain did more good for the world than bad, this is before we talk about the industrialisation and investment across the world - even parts of the world not in the empire such as the United States, Brazil and Argentina were dependent on British wealth for their development.

Who knows what might have happened without the British empire? We can only judge history by what happened, not on some vague counterfactual.

Also trade is hardly a British invention, it's been central to human history.

 

[africanspur]

Is there any end to the achievements of Great Britain? Any end to its altruism? Any end to the good they've done for the planet? I feel like they've never committed a horrible act in their entire history. Certainly not in their recent past.

 

[Plechazunga]

It's not altruism as such, it just so happens that what's in our national interest, or the interest of our ruling classes, happens to have coincided with what is morally right every year since the Battle of Hastings.

 

[shaydun]

Should everyone hate themselves because their ancestors were monsters or just the British?

No one should hate themselves because of their ancestors.

But no one should feel proud of murderous and exploitative expeditions either, especially under the patronising veil of it being a mission to civilise.

 

[Cheesy]

Shows how much I know. I thought of Japan as a country that was on the up, as opposed to one that going to gradually be on the decline over the next half century or so.

While the birth rate is obviously quite low, one positive for them is that the death rate must be very low as well, with the high life expectancy in the country. If they can up the birth rate, they won't have a lot of problems on the other side of things.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Shows how much I know. I thought of Japan as a country that was on the up, as opposed to one that going to gradually be on the decline over the next half century or so.

While the birth rate is obviously quite low, one positive for them is that the death rate must be very low as well, with the high life expectancy in the country. If they can up the birth rate, they won't have a lot of problems on the other side of things.

Japan has been stagnating for twenty years, they have more expensive costs of living than we do and have the most restrictive immigration policy in the developed world - a much increased birth rate isn't going to be happening anytime soon.

Its economy is no longer what it was, they were a net importer for the first time since life began last year, they no longer have such a lead in technological development - the UK and USA are eating into that, and they have the most costly natural disaster in history to pay for a generation or two.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

No one should hate themselves because of their ancestors.

But no one should feel proud of murderous and exploitative expeditions either, especially under the patronising veil of it being a mission to civilise.

Aren't you the poster who wanted reparations on one thread about this subject?

 

[shaydun]

Aren't you the poster who wanted reparations on one thread about this subject?

Eh, no.

I'm the poster who believes it's pretty stupid to feel either guilt or pride over colonialism carried out by one's ancestors.

 

[Wibble]

I wish Baby Cameron would stop saying Pax Britannica.

 

[Team Brian GB]

I wish Baby Cameron would stop saying Pax Britannica.

It is more succinct that saying the British led and dominated world order in the nineteenth century.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Eh, no.

I'm the poster who believes it's pretty stupid to feel either guilt or pride over colonialism carried out by one's ancestors.

Fair enough I wasn't sure so I thought i'd ask.

 

[nimic]

It is more succinct that saying the British led and dominated world order in the nineteenth century.

And now you follow. And eventually the Americans will too. And then the Chinese.

 

[Wibble]

It is more succinct that saying the British led and dominated world order in the nineteenth century.

More succinct and more annoying.

It makes you sound like one of those retired military characters so loved in 70's sitcoms. The major in Fawlty Towers or someone from Dad's Army or It Aint Half Hot Mum.

 

[711]

More succinct and more annoying.

It makes you sound like one of those retired military characters so loved in 70's sitcoms. The major in Fawlty Towers or someone from Dad's Army or It Aint Half Hot Mum.

Or an advert for chicken stuffing from the '50s.

 

[Wibble]

The Mr Chumly-Warner factor. Yes.