Why was England so interested in conquering Ireland?
And don't forget the rich trade in Irish slaves and penal deportees, too. What would Australia be without all of those Irish with one way tickets!

Oh, and lets not forget those delightful Tasmanian hunting parties organized by the English masters, where they hunted the native population for sport and out of existence. What a grand race are the English!
Reply
I am not English, but think nevertheless that you are being quite unfair. Americans engaged in slave trading, delayed entering both World Wars (and now act as if they had won the Second alone), sent dozens of thousands of men to their deaths in Vietnam, have caused more than a million deaths in Iraq, and so on and so forth.

It is contemptible only to look at the faults of a nation, especially when one considers the great men and innumerable inventions and discoveries that England has given to the world.

ETA: amusingly, I got a -1 for this post. Someone can give but can't take. :laughing:
Reply
(07-30-2009, 12:40 PM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote: I am not English, but think nevertheless that you are being quite unfair. Americans engaged in slave trading, delayed entering both World Wars (and now act as if they had won the Second alone), sent dozens of thousands of men to their deaths in Vietnam, have caused more than a million deaths in Iraq, and so on and so forth.

It is contemptible only to look at the faults of a nation, especially when one considers the great men and innumerable inventions and discoveries that England has given to the world.


I agree it is unfair to look only at the negative aspects of British history, and ignore Britain's positive contributions, though I think a lot that has been offered here in commentary is out of sense of playful ethnic/political ridicule.   

Your portrayal of the US failings, however, is frivolous.  We fought a bloody civil war to end slavery and have worked as hard or harder than any country to correct its consequences.  The delay in US entrance to both world wars was based on an isolationist tendency that was/is not immoral in itself, to say the least, and it's objectively true that US entrance titled the balance in both cases (not to disminish the sacrifice of our allies, esp in WW2).  Your portrayals of Vietnam and Iraq are narrow, pejorative, out of context, and grossly one-sided.  Although it's more than arguable that the principle at bottom in all these wars is the same, you'd have us believe that the US was immoral for fighting the world wars "too late," and immoral for fighting the other two wars at all.   

If your point is we shouldn't ignore positive British influence, I agree.  If your point is no country is perfect, I agree.  But your expression of US "shortcomings" is greatly flawed. 

edited to correct typo
Reply
(07-30-2009, 01:05 PM)epalinurus Wrote: Your portrayal of the US failings, however, is frivolous.  We fought a bloody civil war to end slavery and have worked as hard or harder than any country to correct its consequences.

Well, that proves my point. One cannot truly say that "such and such people did this", because it is nothing more than convenient shorthand to incorporate the inhabitants of a nation into a fictional personal entity.

(07-30-2009, 01:05 PM)epalinurus Wrote: The delay in US entrance to both world wars was based on an isolationist tendency that was/is not immoral in itself, to say the least, …

And? Does it make it less true?

(07-30-2009, 01:05 PM)epalinurus Wrote: … and it's objectively true that US entrance titled the balance in both cases (not to disminish the sacrifice of our allies, esp in WW2).

Which is why I did not write: "and now act as if the Second World War could not have been won without them". Indeed, it could not; but neither could the US have won the war without their allies. Many Americans seem oblivious to this.

(07-30-2009, 01:05 PM)epalinurus Wrote: Your portrayals of Vietnam and Iraq are narrow, pejorative, out of context, and grossly one-sided.

As are the above portrayals of historical English behaviour.

(07-30-2009, 01:05 PM)epalinurus Wrote: Although it's more than arguable that the principle at bottom in all these wars is the same, you'd have us believe that the US was immoral for fighting the world wars "too late," and immoral for fighting the other two wars at all.

Well, I certainly would not count those points in the US's favour.
Reply
I don't know how to break out the individual answers so I am putting my responses to your points in bold and italics.

(07-30-2009, 01:15 PM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote:
(07-30-2009, 01:05 PM)epalinurus Wrote: Your portrayal of the US failings, however, is frivolous.  We fought a bloody civil war to end slavery and have worked as hard or harder than any country to correct its consequences.

Well, that proves my point. One cannot truly say that "such and such people did this", because it is nothing more than convenient shorthand to incorporate the inhabitants of a nation into a fictional personal entity.


Maybe, maybe not.  One can say 'such and such people did this" if they are being accurate.  Some of the comments posted re the British are quite accurate and in context.  If your criticism is that there is another side to the British criticisms, offer that side.  Embracing unfair criticisms of the US doesn't support your view that the criticisms of the British are unfair.


(07-30-2009, 01:05 PM)epalinurus Wrote: The delay in US entrance to both world wars was based on an isolationist tendency that was/is not immoral in itself, to say the least, …

And? Does it make it less true?


Yes.  You present it as though it was immoral for the US to have delayed entry to the two world wars.  It wasn't.


(07-30-2009, 01:05 PM)epalinurus Wrote: … and it's objectively true that US entrance titled the balance in both cases (not to disminish the sacrifice of our allies, esp in WW2).

Which is why I did not write: "and now act as if the Second World War could not have been won without them". Indeed, it could not; but neither could the US have won the war without their allies. Many Americans seem oblivious to this.

We agree re the Second World War.


(07-30-2009, 01:05 PM)epalinurus Wrote: Your portrayals of Vietnam and Iraq are narrow, pejorative, out of context, and grossly one-sided.

As are the above portrayals of historical English behaviour.


You didn't say, "If one wanted to present unbalanced, inaccurate view of the US one could say....etc. etc."  You presented your diatribe as though it was true.  Again, an untrue diatribe that you have embraced doesn't support your claim that the attacks on the British are unfair. 


(07-30-2009, 01:05 PM)epalinurus Wrote: Although it's more than arguable that the principle at bottom in all these wars is the same, you'd have us believe that the US was immoral for fighting the world wars "too late," and immoral for fighting the other two wars at all.

Well, I certainly would not count those points in the US's favour.


I don't get your point here.  The principle of entering all four wars was arguably the same.  You can't condemn the US for getting in too late in the first two, while saying they shouldn't have done the last two at all, unless you want to differentiate the last two wars.

Again, I agree that there is more to British history than the negative side shown by some of the posters.  I don't think the comments were meant as definitive historical exposition, but were just a bit of "trash the oppressors" humor by some FEs of Irish ancestry.  But maybe no joke is completely untrue.  Anyway, I don't care if you present a one sided, out of context, or untrue view of US history as a supposition to make your point that some of the criticisms are not balanced, etc.  I do mind a bit if you present the one sided, out of context, or untrue US history as singular fact.

Reply
Concedo.
Reply
Besides, you're stealing The One's thunder!
Reply
Here's another lesson from what it was like to be an English Catholic, as late as WWIhttp://romanchristendom.blogspot.com/200...95-31.html
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)