RedC
Full Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Messages
- 5,757
You have had some seriously awful posts in this thread, tone deaf doesn't even begin to describe them.Hah, that’s a no then?
You have had some seriously awful posts in this thread, tone deaf doesn't even begin to describe them.Hah, that’s a no then?
U-571 is a Hollywood classic - it depicts the bloody AMERICANS capturing the enigma machine (which was of course captured by the British before the US even entered the war).I've not seen that many movies about the USA role in WW2 in Europe, cant really even remember one.
There was Pearl Harbour, but that has very little to do with activities in western Europe. What movies are you referring to?
No. Just, no.Interesting question, I guess the native people of India wanted their own freedom and independence but I bet a lot wish we Brits stuck around?
I mean is it fair to say there would be a far better economy and healthcare system along with better Protection for woman as a few examples?
I ask as it’s a subject I haven’t studied much, mean no offence to anybody of course.
Interesting. I've seen both, and grown up and spent first 27 years living only in UK. Despite watching those movies, my perceptions and beliefs on WW2 (through education and absorbing culture I was exposed to) was that US was a very late entrant always on the periphery and a fringe player of WW2. I had no experiences to make me believe other nations thought USA or USSR were the most critical.Saving Private Ryan and Fury. There are probably quite a few older ones, but I am not old (I'm not!)
The movie doesn't have to take place in Europe for people who watch it to come away with the general impression that the US "won the war", but it's definitely a lot more nuanced and complicated than just that. Cold War politics, for example.
British authority in India was shaped around a hierarchy which was ultimately designed to enhance the security and prosperity of Britain, defined along racial lines, and guaranteed by force of arms. Whatever adjustments to history had been made along the path of its 200 year history, and whatever the complexities of the human relationships which existed within that framework, this hierarchy could not possibly survive the global conditions which prevailed in the immediate aftermath of WW2. Had it seriously attempted to, it's fair to speculate that issues such as healthcare and women's rights would not have been foremost in the thoughts of those British authorities left clinging on to power in the face of what would have been an inevitably bloody conflict across the subcontinent. And certainly no more so than the actually representative Indian governments which followed 1947.Interesting question, I guess the native people of India wanted their own freedom and independence but I bet a lot wish we Brits stuck around?
I mean is it fair to say there would be a far better economy and healthcare system along with better Protection for woman as a few examples?
I ask as it’s a subject I haven’t studied much, mean no offence to anybody of course.
You have had some seriously awful posts in this thread, tone deaf doesn't even begin to describe them.
The state of this thread
Honestly, I really think it's just troll bait now.No. Just, no.
You should really read some books about all the wealth Britain looted from India. If Britain had stayed what on earth makes you think it wouldn't have carried on exploiting Indian resources for Britain's gain?Interesting question, I guess the native people of India wanted their own freedom and independence but I bet a lot wish we Brits stuck around?
I mean is it fair to say there would be a far better economy and healthcare system along with better Protection for woman as a few examples?
I ask as it’s a subject I haven’t studied much, mean no offence to anybody of course.
Just a small example: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/20/britain-took-more-out-of-indiaYou should really read some books about all the wealth Britain looted from India. If Britain had stayed what on earth makes you think it wouldn't have carried on exploiting Indian resources for Britain's gain?
Well it was a generally honest but perhaps naive question It was actually prompted by a poster who claimed to be Indian mentioning how harshly the british are viewed in general and almost all the good we (eventually) did now is lost in the wash so to speak.You should really read some books about all the wealth Britain looted from India. If Britain had stayed what on earth makes you think it wouldn't have carried on exploiting Indian resources for Britain's gain?
Put me on block brother, it will break my heart but I will live.You have had some seriously awful posts in this thread, tone deaf doesn't even begin to describe them.
please can we just lock this threadInteresting question, I guess the native people of India wanted their own freedom and independence but I bet a lot wish we Brits stuck around?
I mean is it fair to say there would be a far better economy and healthcare system along with better Protection for woman as a few examples?
I ask as it’s a subject I haven’t studied much, mean no offence to anybody of course.
You have literally just paraphrased the white supremacist classic "They would all still be in mud huts if it wasn't for us". Get that hamster wheel running a bit quicker in that spot between your ears.Put me on block brother, it will break my heart but I will live.
We can lock you out of it if you like.please can we just lock this thread
The Indian education system mainly highlights the wrongs that the British Raj did to India. But as an unbiased student of history, I would say that yes the British rule did inadvertently do good for India as well in many aspects. But it's absolutely incorrect to say a lot of Indians wanted the British to stick around. A minority did, but most of the Indians were done with British exploitation by that point.Interesting question, I guess the native people of India wanted their own freedom and independence but I bet a lot wish we Brits stuck around?
I mean is it fair to say there would be a far better economy and healthcare system along with better Protection for woman as a few examples?
I ask as it’s a subject I haven’t studied much, mean no offence to anybody of course.
My Dad told me that a cabdriver in a country that was a former british colony told him, that he wished the British would come back. True story. Don't remember which country, would have to ask him again about that. Obviously that random cabdrivers view probably represents the majority of the population.No. Just, no.
This pretty much sums it up with the statues. Churchill is and always will be remembered in the UK for WW2, and that's what the statues represent and mean to people. Other countries might remember him for other things but his statue is not in those countries.Or you could be more honest and say,
My history is important to me but your history isn't.
Your history is important to you but mine isn't.
Then at least we can understand the debate better, but that means we have to live with being hypocrites and it seems we all like being right more than we like getting along.
That's a very idealistic view. Have you heard of operation legacy?Well it was a generally honest but perhaps naive question It was actually prompted by a poster who claimed to be Indian mentioning how harshly the british are viewed in general and almost all the good we (eventually) did now is lost in the wash so to speak.
Seeing as though the Indian famine is the biggest point people refer to in their disgust of Churchill I thought it was a naturally progressive question to the topic.
In answer to your post, I don't think it would have remained that way, we became morally inclined at a certain point and I assume that was partly what made the British inclined to hand back.
I still think it's a relative question, shoot me.
As a socialist I think it's only fair that we collectively suffer this awful thread.We can lock you out of it if you like.
Nice to know where the lines are drawn I guess. God save the queen.We can lock you out of it if you like.
Churchill was 2nd last PM of the British Raj. His acts were just a few, the list of crimes start from 250 years before.Well it was a generally honest but perhaps naive question It was actually prompted by a poster who claimed to be Indian mentioning how harshly the british are viewed in general and almost all the good we (eventually) did now is lost in the wash so to speak.
Seeing as though the Indian famine is the biggest point people refer to in their disgust of Churchill I thought it was a naturally progressive question to the topic.
In answer to your post, I don't think it would have remained that way, we became morally inclined at a certain point and I assume that was partly what made the British inclined to hand back.
I still think it's a relative question, shoot me.
There were hundreds of US war films throughout the 50's, 60's and 70's.I've not seen that many movies about the USA role in WW2 in Europe, cant really even remember one.
There was Pearl Harbour, but that has very little to do with activities in western Europe. What movies are you referring to?
OK. I wasn't aware of them, but believe you.There were hundreds of US war films throughout the 50's, 60's and 70's.
That's a very idealistic view. Have you heard of operation legacy?
Why would the government of the time have gone to such lengths to destroy evidence of their wrongdoings, if they'd become morally inclined?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yeah I was hinting more towards modern day Britain, not the bloodthirsty conquerors of yesteryear. I was drawing comparison on the two in modern day and wondering if anybody there might be inclined to think it would have become better/worse for our continued involvement.That's a very idealistic view. Have you heard of operation legacy?
Why would the government of the time have gone to such lengths to destroy evidence of their wrongdoings, if they'd become morally inclined?
it's really insulting isn't it, "yeah we stole your money and resources and poisoned your culture but (insert thing that every people have done anyway)"I read somewhere that the Indian economy as a share of the world's GDP collapsed from 24% before the British came, to 4% when they left.
WE GAINED SO MUCH
I really don't mean to pile on regards this post but really look at these words, what they mean and why you think them.Interesting question, I guess the native people of India wanted their own freedom and independence but I bet a lot wish we Brits stuck around?
I mean is it fair to say there would be a far better economy and healthcare system along with better Protection for woman as a few examples?
I ask as it’s a subject I haven’t studied much, mean no offence to anybody of course.
Why is it that whenever you get an answer after framing your question as an honest attempt at polite discourse, you throw in some comment disparaging how other people think about and approach the subject? If you were really arguing in good faith, you would not feel the need to do so.Yeah I was hinting more towards modern day Britain, not the bloodthirsty conquerors of yesteryear. I was drawing comparison on the two in modern day and wondering if anybody there might be inclined to think it would have become better/worse for our continued involvement.
Unfortunately, like almost the entire thread, people are stuck in their views on the negative and the racial outlook and morality of people from generations ago.
It's incredible, and the lack of awareness or self awareness is astonishing and reflective of the levels of skewed education these generations have been sustained on.it's really insulting isn't it, "yeah we stole your money and resources and poisoned your culture but (insert thing that every people have done anyway)"
Yes it was called the Jewel of the British empire. Its was much valuable the the U.S was at the time.I read somewhere that the Indian economy as a share of the world's GDP collapsed from 24% before the British came, to 4% when they left.
WE GAINED SO MUCH
Well yes of course you can but this thread would lose almost all debate as a result. Plus these guys love shooting me down, I'm doing them a service during lockdown.We can lock you out of it if you like.
Sorry this is a bit confusing, would you mind rephrasing?Yes it was called the Jewel of the British empire. Its was much valuable the the U.S was at the time.
I think direct support for colonialism is novel in this thread, though I have missed a few pages before.Round and round we go.
I don't know which ones you've missed but given this thread has gone round in circles again and again I've no doubt those pages could be enormously valuable to catch up on.I think direct support for colonialism is novel in this thread, though I have missed a few pages before.
I don't understand what you mean.Sorry this is a bit confusing, would you mind rephrasing?
I bet it was interesting for you. Got 'more eyes since in CE'. None of it gave a balanced nuanced view, rather why the oppressed colonies should stfu cos he was your hero.I don't know which ones you've missed but given this thread has gone round in circles again and again I've no doubt those pages could be enormously valuable to catch up on.
Oh okay. Very constructive, so accurate, you must know me personally to give such a detailed review.I bet it was interesting for you. Got 'more eyes since in CE'. None of it gave a balanced nuanced view, rather why the oppressed colonies should stfu cos he was your hero.
I'ma leave it to you being the man of yesteryear.