My OperaYou need to be logged in to post in the forums. If you do not have an account, please sign up first.
What's going to be the next pointless historical apology?
It seems to be the in thing these days for some political leader or government to apologise for things that happened a long time ago in a different type of society. Is there any point to this idom? Sometimes when no-one had control over a situation. Blair's Irish Famine stunt was typical.You of all people should understand this sort of thing, what with your constant references to the past glory of everything Scot.
Originally posted by string:
I still feel very upset about the Boston Tea Party.
Mea culpa!
What would have been measured growth under Britain became a free for all and by well into the 19th century it was big bucks, corruption and expansion in a wild frenzy. Nope, post Revolution situations are nothing to do with the old home country.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
What would have been measured growth under Britain
What evidence suggests any such thing? All evidence suggests the exact opposite of that claim.
I would like to apologise, on behalf of the British nation, for gravy. Designed to add some flavour to otherwise dull fare, it simply made everything taste the same
Oh and while I'm at it, sorry for the tens of millions we killed/caused to die from Imperial greed!
Such is life!FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Britain created both, directly and indirectly. Apologize.Now why should Gt Britain apologise for the USA? We didn't create it only the original Colonies!
Originally posted by rjhowie:
The greed for profit explains the presence of British colonies in the first place.The greed for profit had much to do with it...
Originally posted by rjhowie:
I suppose "measured growth" would be something like Ireland enjoyed in the 19th century under British rule, huh...What would have been measured growth under Britain...
Originally posted by fanfaron:
Also sorry for things like [...] "American Idol"
American Idol is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_idol">just stolen</a> from the Vastly Superiour European Culture. In fact you have Europe to thank for most, but not all, reality TV concepts.
Originally posted by jax:
Originally posted by fanfaron:
Also sorry for things like [...] "American Idol"
American Idol is just stolen from the Vastly Superiour European Culture. In fact you have Europe to thank for most, but not all, reality TV concepts.
In which case a European apology is due!
TOKYO (AP) — Japan will not apologize again for its World War II military brothels, even if the U.S. Congress passes a resolution demanding it, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told parliament Monday.
Abe, elaborating on his denial last week that women from across Asia were forced into sexual slavery in the 1930s and 1940s, said none of the testimony in hearings last month by the U.S. House of Representatives offered any solid proof of abuse.
I apologize for posting this.
Originally posted by string:
In which case a European apology is due!
5. March 2007, 15:40:08 (edited)
Originally posted by rjhowie:
It seems to be the in thing these days for some political leader or government to apologise for things that happened a long time ago in a different type of society. Is there any point to this idom? Sometimes when no-one had control over a situation. Blair's Irish Famine stunt was typical.
What a wuss.
If you're going to have an apology do it right. We can use a precedent from what a Pope did to his dead predecessor - he had him dug up, put the body on trial, beheaded, applied appropriate curses (something like "May this Satellite of Satan suffer in utmost agony forthwith and eternally") and thrown into the Tiber.
So if you're going to be serious about this, dig up the responsible politicians and put them on trial. If found guilty rebury them in unconsecrated ground, cursing them appropriately, take the assets of their descendent's and distribute to the Irish.
Originally posted by BernG:
take whatever assets their ancestors have
Descendants, but yeah, that should work.
Originally posted by BernG:
So if you're going to be serious about this, dig up the responsible politicians and put them on trial. If found guilty rebury them in unconsecrated ground, cursing them appropriately, take the assets of their descendent's and distribute to the Irish.
Jeez, that'll be bad news for Highgate cemetary!
Britain only created the Crown Colonies. You lot decided to go your own way without permission so don't blame us for the mess you made of it. That's as nonsensical as saying that I gave you a car and you crashed it so it's my fault for giving you it. As we no longer controlled America it's your full responsibility. I would like to see the evidence that the Crown had any plan to take over the whole Continent and ethnic cleanse the Indians all over the place for greed. Indeed the Crown was essentially happy to build on the 13 Colonies. I would remind too that the Pilgrim Fathers did not sail for greed as there was nothing there on a civilised level. Furthermore when the rebels met in Philly for their Congress tey actually discussed inviting a German Prince as Head of State! So you replaced one class of elite by your own.
Following your rather odd view then Britain was responsible for the long delay in not eradicating slavery decades after our Empire outlawed it. Many blacks fought for us in the Revolutionary War as they no doubt had a feeling that in the long run they might get a better deal. They would have been right judging by the way you treated them. We are to blame for blacks not getting franchised for well over a century and a half? For being lynched, bruned out and refused the vote? For the decline of great American cities that came about with great waves of uncontrolled immigration from countries that brought corruption and misuse on a fantastic scale thus spoiling the American Dream. Let's throw in the Civil War for good measure Prohibtition, gangster wars. And perhaps the millions of citizens who cannot afford medical treatment in the great Republic - over 20 million is suggested and so the list goes on. That is the natural progression of basing your view on a false initial basis that all these are our fault?!
Dash it, just spilled my Irn Bru.
My former colonial cousin, you would have been better staying under the Union Flag as things would have been better managed!
Originally posted by rjhowie:
I would like to see the evidence that the Crown had any plan to take over the whole Continent and ethnic cleanse the Indians all over the place for greed.
Every single colony of any size in the Empire. Evidence doesn't get much more 'in your face'...
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Following your rather odd view then Britain was responsible for the long delay in not eradicating slavery decades after our Empire outlawed it.
We outlawed the slave trade decades before. The use of slaves in the British colonies continued for some time. Those darn facts, huh!!!
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Many blacks fought for us in the Revolutionary War as they no doubt had a feeling that in the long run they might get a better deal.
We might give them a boat ride home?
Originally posted by rjhowie:
My former colonial cousin, you would have been better staying under the Union Flag as things would have been better managed!
Originally posted by rjhowie:
I most certainly will not apologise fanfaron!
As a Brit, I'll apologise for him! Sorry!
6. March 2007, 03:00:57 (edited)
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Why on earth did Britain ever do such a rash thing?
Britain only created the Crown Colonies.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
For which I apologize (I know I owe one to string anyway, for the Boston Tea Party. Sorry, string, and all your fellow British subjects).You lot decided to go your own way without permission...
Originally posted by rjhowie:
OK, not blaming you for the mess. Blaming you lot for starting it, though....so don't blame us for the mess you made of it.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Darn, I knew I should've stopped that Continental Congress stuff. Sorry about that.As we no longer controlled America it's your full responsibility.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Don't forget Canada. And anyway, it was more for fear of stirring up the French that Britain hesitated about expansion.I would like to see the evidence that the Crown had any plan to take over the whole Continent and ethnic cleanse the Indians all over the place for greed. Indeed the Crown was essentially happy to build on the 13 Colonies.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
No, but crown colonies were supposed to turn a profit. Otherwise their charters would be revoked.I would remind too that the Pilgrim Fathers did not sail for greed as there was nothing there on a civilised level.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Which England had done with George I.Furthermore when the rebels met in Philly for their Congress tey actually discussed inviting a German Prince as Head of State!
Originally posted by rjhowie:
I'd say the number is much higher than that, actually.And perhaps the millions of citizens who cannot afford medical treatment in the great Republic - over 20 million is suggested...
Originally posted by rjhwoie:
You might find that your motor skills would be better with good old American Coke.Dash it, just spilled my Irn Bru.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Well, you might have a point there. Dunno.My former colonial cousin, you would have been better staying under the Union Flag as things would have been better managed!
Originally posted by garydenness:
gary, I'll accept your heartfelt contrition and offer my own apologies for my reckless ancestors, who had the shall we say unwisdom to break away from the Mother Country. And I know that rjhowie, deep in his Union Jack soul, feels a great deal of regret and deep sorrow for the wrongs done by his "lot" to my "lot". He just can't show any cracks in his imperialist exterior, which is understandable. So now we are all squared away.Originally posted by rjhowie:
I most certainly will not apologise fanfaron!
As a Brit, I'll apologise for him! Sorry!
*handshakes*Originally posted by fanfaron:
I'll accept your heartfelt contrition and offer my own apologies for my reckless ancestors, who had the shall we say unwisdom to break away from the Mother Country. And I know that rjhowie, deep in his Union Jack soul, feels a great deal of regret and deep sorrow for the wrongs done by his "lot" to my "lot". He just can't show any cracks in his imperialist exterior, which is understandable. So now we are all squared away.
Great that this matter is finally resolved. Now, do the Greek/Persian conflict.
Originally posted by fanfaron:
and offer my own apologies for my reckless ancestors,
All accepted without question! I'd also like to apologise for the Spice Girls.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Ah but your put down of the congress wanting a German Prince has no comparison fanfaron. Gt Britain was a monarchy and the mood in the new USA was for a break away from that and new beginnings yet were still prepared to consider Royalty! We weren't concerned about the birthplace of our King and it was very obvious that the Americans were certainly not either having looked at the at the same country! Touche.
Actually, you have understood the 'mood' incorrectly RJ. Would you believe! The American 'rebels' had no great problem with remaining under the monarchy. In fact they were generally happy with the idea. What they wanted, really wanted, was a degree of independent govt. Self rule rather than rule from London. You'll have to bear in mind that GB was in decline at the time, arguing/warring with almost everyone and not proving very effective at govt.
The 'rebels' proposal was for a status very similar to that which was later granted to/assumed by Canada and Australia - dominion status. The British govt rejected such a notion, and so began a war that many in the British parliament and public in general were extremely hostile to. It was an unpopular war....the American rebels had a lot of sympathy and support from our own shores.
Your whole premise that the principal aim of the 'rebels' was to break away from royaly is simply not true. It's fiction, as was the assertions regarding the support for Britain amongst the Americans, and the service of blacks.
At the commencement of battle, the rebels had the active support of nearly 50% of the population. The Loyalists less than 20%. Both sides made promises of freedom for blacks - not to the most part fulfilled by either side. Nonetheless, 5,000 served the 'rebels' and around 1,000 the Loyalists. Where do you get your figures from?
Originally posted by garydenness:
The American 'rebels' had no great problem with remaining under the monarchy.
My own forebears were happy with the crown...enough so that they migrated to Canada! And became Catholics so they could own land. Strange people, and I guess this will explain much about what I have become, an atheist with photos of Diana all over the house, which are framed by gathered Spanish flags.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
It didn't pay anyway to be on the losing side as it happens hence hundreds of thousands requiring to move.
70,000 ish in total, but if adding extra zero's helps make your point, then why not!
Whoever started this line of historical clothes tearing and self hair pulling has a lot to answer for. Maybe the Italian goverment could apologise for the Roman invasion. Well maybe to England. They couldn't get very far into Scotland and had to build 2 walls as we were a tougher nut to crack and had to give up.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Some of these historical apologies don't make any sense. For example when Tony Blair (the longest resigner) apologised on behalf of Britain for the Irish Famine I could have spluttered out my Irn Bru. Totally pointless as we didn't produce a germ to put in the crop to make it fail. But there again full of pointless gestures and little substance. We didn't create that item in Ireland so why apologise for it?
Unfortunately, the British govt was principally to blame for the Irish potato famine. It would take you just a couple of moments of digging to discover why.
I know you won't, lest it compromise your current belief system, so I'll give a brief run down...
The British govt decided Ireland was a fantastic place to grow the new wonder food - the potato. And so the command went forth, and Ireland grew potatoes. Pretty much just potatoes. The diversity of crops previously grown went out the window, and when the bug came and destroyed the potato crops, there wasnowt else to eat. How did Britain, ruling Ireland from London, respond to the desperate plight of the starving hordes?
Ummm....."Let them eat cake?" I know it was Josephine, but the similarities are too good to let it pass!
Originally posted by rjhowie:
My my my...aren't we quick to see the farcical nature of the American Republic but not of the British Empire? Google is your friend, rjhowie.... We didn't create that item in Ireland so why apologise for it?
From: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/irish_potato_famine.cfmThe Irish potato famine was not simply a natural disaster. It was a product of social causes. Under British rule, Irish Catholics were prohibited from entering the professions or even purchasing land. Instead, many rented small plots of land from absentee British Protestant landlords. Half of all landholdings were less than 5 acres in 1845.
Irish peasants subsisted on a diet consisting largely of potatoes, since a farmer could grow triple the amount of potatoes as grain on the same plot of land. A single acre of potatoes could support a family for a year. About half of Ireland's population depended on potatoes for subsistence.
The inadequacy of relief efforts by the British Government worsened the horrors of the potato famine. Initially, England believed that the free market would end the famine. In 1846, in a victory for advocates of free trade, Britain repealed the Corn Laws, which protected domestic grain producers from foreign competition. The repeal of the Corn Laws failed to end the crisis since the Irish lacked sufficient money to purchase foreign grain.
In the spring of 1847, Britain adopted other measures to cope with the famine, setting up soup kitchens and programs of emergency work relief. But many of these programs ended when a banking crisis hit Britain. In the end, Britain relied largely on a system of work houses, which had originally been established in 1838, to cope with the famine. But these grim institutions had never been intended to deal with a crisis of such sweeping scope. Some 2.6 million Irish entered overcrowded workhouses, where more than 200,000 people died.
The Irish Potato Famine left as its legacy deep and lasting feelings of bitterness and distrust toward the British. Far from being a natural disaster, many Irish were convinced that the famine was a direct outgrowth of British colonial policies. In support of this contention, they noted that during the famine's worst years, many Anglo-Irish estates continued to export grain and livestock to England.
Originally posted by fanfaron:
In support of this contention, they noted that during the famine's worst years, many Anglo-Irish estates continued to export grain and livestock to England.
Very similar to what happened during the Indian Famine -
The observations of the Famine Commission of 1880 support the notion that food distribution is more to blame for famines than food scarcity. They observed that each province in British India, including Burma, had a surplus of foodgrains, and the annual surplus was 5.16 million tons (Bhatia, 1970). At that time, annual export of rice and other grains from India was approximately one million tons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine#India
The same still happens today. Bangladesh is entirely food self sufficient, but due to the large quantities of food production exported, huge numbers of people suffer from severe malnutrition. Although not so much Britain's fault in this case!
Oh, the Famine certainly did create bitterness in quarters and that these poor ignorant peasants perceived that it was British created is almost understandable. Their feckless and uneducated ignorance of course doesn't make it so. We are aware how large of an effect it had on a land with no natural resources, limited arable land, big families that couldn't be sustained and so on. Even modern Irish historians are querying some of the stories that linger on from the hinterland and have found some disquieting over estimates. The Famine has been used for a long time to beat we British over the head but in reality there was little anyone could do away back then. There were no great agricultural colleges or knowledge of crop situations as in these enlightened times. So for ur PM to apologise for something that was no respector of anyone and happened on it's own is a disgrace. It's about time the general Irishsh attitude to this was pinpricked. We had a terrible famine situation prior to the Union of Parliaments in 1707 here in Scotland but we didn't go blaming it on the English as if they had created it deliberately.
More Irish people should heed their own historians and have a fairer attitude to that admittedly terrible scourge. However there are more level heads nowadays to hopefuly counter balance the diehard nutters consumed by a mythical bitterness.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Britain managed to concoct away back in those simple days a disease that only effected one religion. Indeed there were places in Ireland where the native Irish RC landlords were less than helpful to their own. So the Protestant neigbour could be just as badly effected by theblight as his opposite number over the hedge.
Anglicans recieved favourable treatment. No question. Many landowners continued to prosper. The peasantry, mainly RC were the ones to suffer. British rule made this so.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
The Famine has been used for a long time to beat we British over the head but in reality there was little anyone could do away back then.
Really??? What about the vast quantities of food stuffs that were still being exported, even as hundreds of thousands died? There was plenty that could have been done.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
It's about time the general Irishsh attitude to this was pinpricked.
There are most certainly attitudes that need to be...umm....rethought? No the Irish attitudes though.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
that these poor ignorant peasants perceived that it was British created is almost understandable.
Indeed. You do realise that almost all famine deaths have been preventable for a while now, right?
Originally posted by rjhowie:
the diehard nutters consumed by a mythical bitterness.
If Ireland's own historians untainted by us can be more indepth then so should others fanfaron. I am not answering any challenges by the correspondent from Mexico. I have made it clear on the Forums some time ago that I will not do so due to his actions. He can say and challenge what he likes here and care not a fig but I will answer anyone else.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
The situation seems to have been nowhere near that desperate for Britain. From McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 386:Fanfaron, I am well aware of the Potato Famine situation and of modern historians IN Ireland. Apart from the other famine in Scotland there was yet another tragedy in England between 1861 and 1864 when the American Civil War was on and due to blockade no cotton could be supplied to the giant mills in the Northern England. This over the time led to mass poverty, hunger, malutrition, contagious diseases and death.
Inventories of raw cotton in Britain and France were higher in December 1861 than any previous December. The cotton famine from which the South expected so much did not really take hold until the summer of 1862. By then the Confederacy had scuttled its embargo and was trying desperately to export cotton through the tightening blockade to pay for imported supplies. By then, too, the stimulus of high prices had brought about an increase of cotton acreage in Egypt and India, which supplied most of Europe's cotton imports for the next three years.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Now, now. Let's not be childish.I am not answering any challenges by the correspondent from Mexico. I have made it clear on the Forums some time ago that I will not do so due to his actions. He can say and challenge what he likes here and care not a fig but I will answer anyone else.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Fanfaron, I am well aware of the Potato Famine situation and of modern historians IN Ireland. Apart from the other famine in Scotland there was yet another tragedy in England between 1861 and 1864 when the American Civil War was on and due to blockade no cotton could be supplied to the giant mills in the Northern England. This over the time led to mass poverty, hunger, malutrition, contagious diseases and death. There was also mass imigration at the time f the Highland Clearances too. When yo uconside htat a quarter of the population worked in the cotton industry a dire situation. Yet at this time the cotton workers even in dire circumstances still met and said they agreed with Lincoln in the anti-slavery matter. Neither the Scottish nor English situation has had the emotive history of the Irish because we had this long peopaganda about the bad British keeping in darkness. Many ot their own leaders have a part to layin mistreating their very own.
Yes.....but what has this got to do with the Irish Famine? Are you suggesting that other events somehow render what happened to Ireland as meaningless? Are you also unaware that as far as percentage of population goes, the Irish Famine is amongst the most devastating ever know?
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Britain was not reposnsible for the famine as a natural but terrible blight and it is about time this was emphasised.
Has anyone ever suggested Britain was responsible for the bug itself? I know that Blair most certainly did not apologise for that. So where has this suggestion come from?
Here's some reading from a variety of sources...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Potato_Famine
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/famine/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.shtml
http://www.irelandinformationguide.com/Irish_potato_famine
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:qB-3fdzgtpQJ:www.ucd.ie/economics/research/papers/2004/WP04.25.pdf+potato+irish+famine+ie&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&client=opera
Particularly suitable is this web site perhaps...
http://www.irishpotatofamine.org/
Originally posted by rjhowie:
If Ireland's own historians untainted by us can be more indepth then so should others fanfaron.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
I am not answering any challenges by the correspondent from Mexico.
Your choice. I'll still carry on regardless.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
I have made it clear on the Forums some time ago that I will not do so due to his actions.
Personal attacks?
Originally posted by rjhowie:
He can say and challenge what he likes here and care not a fig but I will answer anyone else.
I don't often challenge you RJ! Just point out the factual errors, supported by various links.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Fanfaron when you consider why I will never again answer anything from the man in question then don't accuse me of being childish. He is the one who dished out sarcasm and when I dished it back he ran crying to the Mod. Over my time I have taken and given at the same level but accepted the heat of the kitchen even when it was very personal. The Mod pointed out that however I had not complained the other person had. I have never once ran to them no matter what has been said. If anyone was being childish it was not I. He can rant and rubbish my comments all he likes I will not answer them so let him have his field day as oft as liked. So pass your childish comment to where it should go. I took the slings and arrows and was made of sterner stuff so why should I lower myself to those who want to control the forum?
You still read my posts and regularly refer to them....but if you insist I should always have the last word so be it!
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Well to whomsoever is reading this
Still reading my posts RJ....you really haven't gotten the hang of ignoring someone, have you?
Showing topic replies 1 - 50 of 139.