#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Canada: Queen Elizabeth's bitch
Two hundred years ago the English conquered French Canada by force of arms, and sadly, they've been England's bitch ever since.
Up until 1982 Canada and it's citizens literally belonged to the royal crown. Before that date the queen and British parliament had final say on all affairs within Canada's border. Even today the queen is their symbolic leader and her image is printed on all Canadian currency.
I find it sad that poor Canada never did grow a pair and declare full independence for themselves. It must be embarrassing to give up all sovereignty and national pride to some crusty old lady on the other side of the planet.
Still today, 200 years after the conquest, French-Canadian functionaries of the government of Quebec and the government of Ottawa must swear allegiance to the Queen of England if they want to obtain employment.
The employees of Radio Canada or the National Film Board must swear allegiance to the Queen of England.
All members of the armed forces must swear allegiance to the Queen of England
So what's it going to be Canada? Are you always going to be the queen's polite little slaves? Don't you think it's time to take a break from all the curling and hockey and drinking Molsen and finally write your declaration of independence? Don't you think it's time to put on the big boy pants and be a nation of your own?
Yes, declare independance
Side Score: 39
|
Nah..You wanna go curling, ay?
Side Score: 30
|
|
At least we know we aren't descendant from a bunch of pussies :) It is our choice what we put on our currency. Our currency shows our founding fathers and not some other country's leaders that we are still subject to. I will talk, and I shall be proud of my nation's revolution against the queen. Side: Yes, declare independance
We also put many significant figures on our money, people who have not only changed Britain but chnaged the world and the way we act. You Americans may worship your founding fathers, but it is little different from us putting the Monarch on our currency. "I will talk, and I shall be proud of my nation's revolution against the queen." I think you'll find it was a King. Side: Nah..You wanna go curling, ay?
"I will talk, and I shall be proud of my nation's revolution against the queen." I think you'll find it was a King. Allow me to rephrase that to "I'm proud of my nation's revolution against the crown". Of course you are correct, it was a king then and today it's a queen. 1 point for you. Side: Yes, declare independance
We also put many significant figures on our money, people who have not only changed Britain but chnaged the world and the way we act. You Americans may worship your founding fathers, but it is little different from us putting the Monarch on our currency. It is different. You put kings and queens on your currency because you have no choice. The people we put on our currency were democratically elected by the people of this nation. None of them were born with any special privilege and they had to earn the respect they receive today. So yeah, it's apples and oranges. Side: Yes, declare independance
Why does 'change' imply 'choice'? I prefer the currency as it is. I might omit the "in god we trust" part but I certainly wouldn't change the people depicted. What are we going to do, put Micheal Jackson on the $20? Anyway our currency has changed in many ways. The new state quarters for instance. Each state has submitted an image for a quarter in that states honor. Side: Yes, declare independance
I think I can state it.... lets try, Canada is inferior because they still retain the british monarch on their currency. Canada has no choice because they are pussies. That makes them inferior. Canada cannot choose who they want to put on their currency because in 2012 they still have not declared independence for themselves. Pussies. Side: Yes, declare independance
No thanks. I'll take createdebate, you can go to "other websites". I have made my argument very clear, even if your little 16 year old brain can't understand it. Allow me to reiterate since it's so hard for you to understand. I want you to understand exactly how backwards you are, Axmeister. Canada has no choice what they put on their currency until they declare themselves an independent nation, which they still have not done in 2012. Americans get to put whatever Americans want to put on our currency because we are not peasants, we're full on human beings. WE decide, not some douchey royal family that we are subjects of. Are you starting to understand? We are not pets like you are, we are individuals that are born free and we make our own decisions. Since we aren't pets and we don't need a master, we govern ourselves. Abraham Lincoln, (our 16th president, the man that ended slavery in the south, and the image of whom can be seen on the $5 bill) characterized our government as a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" in the Gettysburg address. So that's one reason Canada is inferior to modern nations like the united states. We bow to no one, and the result is that we as a nation have the sovereignty to do as we please within our borders (and outside of our borders if we choose). With that power comes the ability to put whatever we want on our currency. This is something that Canada does not have, nor does your shitty little island. You are all subjects of the crown and have no choice but to put this ugly old lady on your currency. This makes you inferior. That is all. Side: Yes, declare independance
Sorry to dig up an old debate, but I hadn't realised that you had replied to my arguments. "Canada has no choice what they put on their currency until they declare themselves an independent nation, which they still have not done in 2012." Clearly they can choose whether to be an independent nation or not, so they do have a choice, they just choose to remain loyal to the Monarchy. "Americans get to put whatever Americans want to put on our currency because we are not peasants," Sorry, since when were the Canadians peasants? And do you know what's really funny about your currency. You don't even get to print it. The U.S Government doesn't print U.S dollars, the Federal Reserve does. And the Federal Reserve is owned by private banks, and guess who owns the private banks... [Extract from Who owns and controlsthe Federal Reserve] "the top eight stockholders of the New York Fed were, in order from largest to smallest as of 1983, Citibank, Chase Manhatten, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust, Bankers Trust Company, National Bank of North America, and the Bank of New York (Mullins, p. 179). Together, these banks owned about 63 percent of the New York Fed's outstanding stock. Mullins then showed that many of these banks are owned by about a dozen European banking organizations, mostly British, and most notably the Rothschild banking dynasty." [Extract from the 1983 book, 'Secrets of the Federal Reserve' by Eustace Mullins] "The most powerful men in the United States were themselves answerable to another power, a foreign power, and a power which had been steadfastly seeking to extend its control over the young republic since its very inception. The power was the financial power of England, centered in the London Branch of the House of Rothschild. The fact was that in 1910, the United States was for all practical purposes being ruled from England, and so it is today" So it appears that Britain has more of a decision about what goes on American money than it does over Canadian money. "WE decide, not some douchey royal family that we are subjects of." Please provide a source about how the Royal Family designed the Canadian dollar. "Are you starting to understand? We are not pets like you are, we are individuals that are born free and we make our own decisions. Since we aren't pets and we don't need a master, we govern ourselves." Are you aware of how many countries in the world are free? Of the 196 countries in the world 149 are free. Are you going to grow up and tell your children that America is great because it is one of 149 countries which have freedom? "Abraham Lincoln, (our 16th president, the man that ended slavery in the south, and the image of whom can be seen on the $5 bill)" A slave system which would have ended decades earlier if America had stayed under British rule... Also, Abraham Lincoln was a racist who would happily have had all black people deported from the USA. "characterized our government as a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" in the Gettysburg address." Because if a Government says something, it has to be true... "So that's one reason Canada is inferior to modern nations like the united states. We bow to no one, and the result is that we as a nation have the sovereignty to do as we please within our borders (and outside of our borders if we choose)." Britain bows to no-one and as part of the British Empire, Canada didn't bow down to anyone either. "With that power comes the ability to put whatever we want on our currency. This is something that Canada does not have, nor does your shitty little island. You are all subjects of the crown and have no choice but to put this ugly old lady on your currency." We have all the choice in the world. But tradition and precedence fix our loyalty to our monarchy. "This makes you inferior. That is all." Inferior to what? Your pathetic nation? Side: Nah..You wanna go curling, ay?
|
America revolted for no justifiable reason, Canada has no reason to revolt. So you are down with tyranny then? Taxation without representation is alright with you? The royal bloodline is superior to our shitty peasant families and we're so retarded we need kings and queens to rule us? Are you serious? You think a tyrannical, totalitarian, monarchy is preferable to representative democracy? Really? Side: Yes, declare independance
"So you are down with tyranny then?" What tyranny? "Taxation without representation is alright with you?" If the American colonies were taxed, it was to fund a war you started. "The royal bloodline is superior to our shitty peasant families and we're so retarded we need kings and queens to rule us?" And the difference between a Monarch and your President is? "Are you serious? You think a tyrannical, totalitarian, monarchy is preferable to representative democracy? Really?" The British Monarchy wasn't tyrannical nor was it totalitarian. And you "representative democracy" had all the royalist conservatives ejected from the country, who then moved to Canada. Hence, Canada's sensibility and loyalty to the Monarchy. Side: Nah..You wanna go curling, ay?
I happen to believe that all men are created equal and are born with inalienable rights. I'm sorry you are so backwards as to not understand that. In the modern world, the people govern themselves and vote for their leaders. Do you know what voting is? "So you are down with tyranny then?" What tyranny? So lets get started on teaching the English kid English. Everyone taking notes? So....Websters defines tyranny as, 1: oppressive power 2: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler A monarch is defined as, 1: undivided rule or absolute sovereignty by a single person Sounds like similar enough language to me. Tyranny and Monarchy are synonymous. "The royal bloodline is superior to our shitty peasant families and we're so retarded we need kings and queens to rule us?" And the difference between a Monarch and your President is? Well you see Axmeister, Monarchy and democracy are two different styles of government. Democracies have presidents that hold only one third of the governing power of a nation and they basically can't do anything without congresses approval. (Do you know what a congress is or do I have to teach you that too? Maybe you should look up what a president is since you don't understand.) Monarchies on the other hand have kings and queens that do whatever they please due to their perceived superiority, which you follow. These rulers are not elected and thus have no obligation to the people and nothing to keep their power in check. Did that help? Do you understand the difference between a president and a king now? Come and join us in the modern world where ALL men are created equal. Don't try to fight it, these concepts are self-evident after all. Side: Yes, declare independance
"I happen to believe that all men are created equal and are born with inalienable rights. I'm sorry you are so backwards as to not understand that." I believe the same concept, it's just that some people are born into positions of wealth or power. If you truly think that everyone should be born equal then you must be against inheritance of all kinds, which is silly. "So lets get started on teaching the English kid English. Everyone taking notes? So....Websters defines tyranny as, 1: oppressive power 2: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler A monarch is defined as, 1: undivided rule or absolute sovereignty by a single person Sounds like similar enough language to me. Tyranny and Monarchy are synonymous." Let's teach the american some political concepts shall we. Consititutional Monarchy is a nation where the monarch's power is limited by other governing bodies, mostly aristocracy or parliament. The most ironic thing about you saying America revolted because of the king's tyranny is that Spain, an absolute monarchy, owned more of North America than Britain did. "Well you see Axmeister, Monarchy and democracy are two different styles of government. Democracies have presidents that hold only one third of the governing power of a nation and they basically can't do anything without congresses approval. (Do you know what a congress is or do I have to teach you that too? Maybe you should look up what a president is since you don't understand.) Monarchies on the other hand have kings and queens that do whatever they please due to their perceived superiority, which you follow. These rulers are not elected and thus have no obligation to the people and nothing to keep their power in check." It's funny, you describe the President in terms of realism, but you define our Queen as what she symbolises. You also assume that Britain cannot be a democracy because we have a monarch. Our Queen has power limited by Parliament, she automatically approves of every law they make. The last monarch who didn't give Royal Consent to Parliament's law was Queen Anne, who was then forced to give her consent anyway. "Did that help? Do you understand the difference between a president and a king now?" Yes, you cannot describe a monarchy with any experience. "Come and join us in the modern world where ALL men are created equal. Don't try to fight it, these concepts are self-evident after all." America? the modern world? This is the nation that abolished slavery after Britain did, revolted against the monarchy after Britain did and joined both World Wars after Britain did. While we were installing democracies into less developed nations you were making sure all of America worshiped George Washington (and later Abraham Lincoln). I find it extremely amusing that you refer to the USA as the "modern world". Side: Nah..You wanna go curling, ay?
I believe the same concept, it's just that some people are born into positions of wealth or power. If you truly think that everyone should be born equal then you must be against inheritance of all kinds, which is silly. That's actually not how it works in modern civilized nations. Here, you can't inherit power. You can only inherit wealth. You see, here in the modern world, you don't inherit sovereignty over other human beings, you don't inherit government property that the people paid for though taxes, and you don't inherit respect or nobility. That's because in the modern world we actually reject the idea that anyone is born special. We don't have any silly concepts of people having a some pedigree or superior ancestry or bloodline. We believe that all men are truly created equal, even your stuck up royal family. No one else actually believes in that anymore, only your backwards little island. Constitutional Monarchy is a nation where the monarch's power is limited by other governing bodies, mostly aristocracy or parliament. You didn't ask me what the difference is between representative democracy and a constitutional monarchy. You said, And the difference between a Monarch and your President is? ..and I told you. America? the modern world? This is the nation that abolished slavery after Britain did, revolted against the monarchy after Britain did and joined both World Wars after Britain did. While we were installing democracies into less developed nations you were making sure all of America worshiped George Washington (and later Abraham Lincoln). I'm glad you bring up those wars actually, because you took full advantage of our stronger and more modern military when we were saving your asses from the Germans. Your sad little continent was in shambles and you needed our bigger, more powerful military force before Hitler bombed you out of existence. Your nation was so fucked you just finished paying the loan you took out for WW2 in 2006. Both wars you started and we had to finish, due to our superior everything. While we were installing democracies into less developed nations Um...what are you talking about? Do you mean when you were going around trying to own this undeveloped nation and then that undeveloped nation. Were you trying to 'install democracy' in India or make them property of the crown? I think we all know how that went. When are you brits going to get it though your heads that no one is special, we are all created equal. Side: Yes, declare independance
"That's actually not how it works in modern civilized nations. Here, you can't inherit power. You can only inherit wealth." And money is power. "You see, here in the modern world, you don't inherit sovereignty over other human beings, you don't inherit government property that the people paid for though taxes, and you inherit respect or nobility." Who says that any of the Queen's land is government property? Even if it did come under the term 'gerovernment property' it is probably due to the fact that the Queen is officially part of the government. "That's because in the modern world we actually reject the idea that anyone is born special. We don't have any silly concepts of people having a some pedigree or superior ancestry or bloodline. We believe that all men are truly created equal, even your stuck up royal family. No one else believes that anymore, only your backwards little island." How come you have so many families forming political dynasties? Please stop with this 'we believe all men are reated equal' bullshit. Clearly you nation doesn't otherwise there would be no inheritance, leading to a huge decrease in the class gap. "You didn't ask me what the difference is between representative democracy and a constitutional monarchy. You said, And the difference between a Monarch and your President is?..and I told you." Seeing as this debate refers to the British Monarchy, I thought I could put it breifly. I meant, what is the difference between our Monarch and your President? "I'm glad you bring up those wars actually, because you took full advantage of our stronger and more modern military when we were saving your asses from the Germans. Your sad little continent was in shambles and you needed our bigger, more powerful military force before Hitler bombed you out of existence. Your nation was so fucked you just finished paying the loan you took out for WW2 in 2006. Both wars you started and we had to finish, due to our superior everything." In WWI our military force was several times stronger than yours, it was only because we had to fight most of WWI that we couldn't prevent Hitler expanding during the 1930's (you could have, you just didn't want to) then we eventually decided to try stop the Nazi's you americans (once again) decide not to join in the war until we starty winning. In both World Wars America stayed hiding under their 'isolationist' policy while Britain had to fight the full brunt of the war. The only reason America was ever given any credit was to hide Soviet Russia's contribution. Once again, you suffer from a delusion that America was superior in anything, ever. The only reason you could ever have been considered a power was because you cowardly hid away while the European empires fought the greatest war in history. "Um...what are you talking about? Do you mean when you were going around trying to own this undeveloped nation and then that undeveloped nation. Were you trying to 'install democracy' in India or make them property of the crown? I think we all know how that went." Clearly, you don't understand what happened in the British Empire, why don't you stop with the crappy assumptions that 'Britain did this because my TV said so' and start using some evidence. "When are you brits going to get it though your heads that no one is special, we are all created equal." I've already stated several times that Britain also considers everyone equal. Anyway, who are you to claim your country as the pinnicale of euqality on this planet. You had slavery and sheer racial hatred and prejudice decades after Britain abolished the slave trade, the Royal Navy even freed some of your slaves during the War of 1812 Side: Nah..You wanna go curling, ay?
"That's actually not how it works in modern civilized nations. Here, you can't inherit power. You can only inherit wealth." And money is power. Money is different from political power. I'm sorry you can't understand this concept. Here in America, you can inherit money, but you don't inherit a political position, you have to be elected. For instance, if my dad is governor of California, I can inherit whatever money he has, but I cannot inherit the governorship of California. Are you starting to understand yet? Who says that any of the Queen's land is government property? Even if it did come under the term 'gerovernment property' it is probably due to the fact that the Queen is officially part of the government. Since you claim to believe that all men are created equal, how does an Englishman become "officially part of the government"? Is there some kind of application process or internship for the position of King of England? No there isn't. So how can all men be created equal if you have to have the right bloodline to enter the highest class of society and become "officially part of the government"? Clearly in your country, all men are not treated equally. How come you have so many families forming political dynasties? There are no dynasties here. You obviously don't know what a dynasty is. Here we go back to websters, Dynasty 1: a succession of rulers of the same line of descent So, what are you talking about? What dynasty of rulers does Barack Obama come from? What royal line of decent did any of our presidents come from? In WWI our military force was several times stronger than yours, it was only because we had to fight most of WWI that we couldn't prevent Hitler expanding during the 1930's In WWI our military force was several times stronger than yours, it was only because we had to fight most of WWI that we couldn't prevent Hitler expanding during the 1930's (you could have, you just didn't want to) then we eventually decided to try stop the Nazi's you americans (once again) decide not to join in the war until we starty winning. In both World Wars America stayed hiding under their 'isolationist' policy while Britain had to fight the full brunt of the war. The only reason America was ever given any credit was to hide Soviet Russia's contribution. You started a war with the Germans. Why would we fight your war for you? When the European war you started became a problem for us, we started fighting, and then we saved your pasty pansy asses. Odd that you are proud of this era of British failure and American might. Clearly, you don't understand what happened in the British Empire, why don't you stop with the crappy assumptions that 'Britain did this because my TV said so' and start using some evidence. I don't remember mentioning TV. Evidence you say? Here you are, In his book Late Victorian Holocausts, published in 2001, Mike Davis tells the story of famines that killed between 12 and 29 million Indians. These people were, he demonstrates, murdered by British state policy. When an El NiƱo drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan plateau in 1876 there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the viceroy, Lord Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent its export to England. In 1877 and 1878, at the height of the famine, grain merchants exported a record 6.4m hundredweight of wheat. As the peasants began to starve, officials were ordered "to discourage relief works in every possible way". The Anti-Charitable Contributions Act of 1877 prohibited "at the pain of imprisonment private relief donations that potentially interfered with the market fixing of grain prices". The only relief permitted in most districts was hard labour, from which anyone in an advanced state of starvation was turned away. In the labour camps, the workers were given less food than inmates of Buchenwald. In 1877, monthly mortality in the camps equated to an annual death rate of 94%. As millions died, the imperial government launched "a militarised campaign to collect the tax arrears accumulated during the drought". The money, which ruined those who might otherwise have survived the famine, was used by Lytton to fund his war in Afghanistan. Even in places that had produced a crop surplus, the government's export policies, like Stalin's in Ukraine, manufactured hunger. In the north-western provinces, Oud and the Punjab, which had brought in record harvests in the preceeding three years, at least 1.25m died. So, you were saying how Britain just wanted to help out undeveloped nations like India....or some such non-sense. Please continue...
Supporting Evidence:
The Turks haven't learned the British way of denying past atrocities
(www.guardian.co.uk)
Side: Yes, declare independance
"Money is different from political power. I'm sorry you can't understand this concept. Here in America, you can inherit money, but you don't inherit a political position, you have to be elected. For instance, if my dad is governor of California, I can inherit whatever money he has, but I cannot inherit the governorship of California. Are you starting to understand yet?" Yes, and you'ld be surprised at how easily it can be to become a high ranking politician if your father was a high ranking politician with lots of money. "Since you claim to believe that all men are created equal, how does an Englishman become "officially part of the government"? Is there some kind of application process or internship for the position of King of England? No there isn't. So how can all men be created equal if you have to have the right bloodline to enter the highest class of society and become "officially part of the government"? Clearly in your country, all men are not treated equally. " You imply that all politicians and members of Government are superior in character to their fellow men? And how does being in the upper class make you superior to people in the lower class? "There are no dynasties here. You obviously don't know what a dynasty is. Here we go back to websters, Dynasty 1: a succession of rulers of the same line of descent So, what are you talking about? What dynasty of rulers does Barack Obama come from? What royal line of decent did any of our presidents come from? " There's a whole section of wikipedia set aside to list your American political dynasties, you have the whole alphabet to choose from. But as an example, I'll choose the last President of yours, George Bush, to show you the political dynasty he comes from. William P. Walker (1778ā1858), Massachusetts State Representative, Massachusetts State Senator, Massachusetts Governor's Councilman, Probate Court Judge in Massachusetts 1824ā1848. Father-in-law of Julius Rockwell and David Davis. Julius Rockwell (1805ā1888), U.S. Representative from Massachusetts 1843ā1851, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts 1854ā1855, candidate for Governor of Massachusetts 1855. Son-in-law of William P. Walker. David Davis (1815ā1886), Illinois State Representative 1845, delegate to the Illinois Constitutional Convention 1847, Circuit Court Judge in Illinois 1848ā1862, delegate to the Republican National Convention 1860, Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court 1862ā1877, candidate for Liberal Republican Party nomination for President of the United States 1872, U.S. Senator from Illinois 1877ā1883. Son-in-law of William P. Walker. Henry Winter Davis (1817ā1865), U.S. Representative from Maryland 1855ā1861 and 1863ā1865. Cousin of David Davis. Francis W. Rockwell (1844ā1929), U.S. Representative from Massachusetts 1884ā1891. Son of Julius Rockwell. Prescott Bush (1895ā1972), delegate to the Republican National Convention 1948 1956 1960, candidate for U.S. Senate from Connecticut 1950, U.S. Senator from Connecticut 1952ā1963. Father of George H.W. Bush. George H. W. Bush (1924āpresent), delegate to the Republican National Convention 1964, candidate for U.S. Senate from Texas 1964ā1970, U.S. Representative from Texas 1967ā1971, U.S. Representative to the United Nations 1971ā1973, Chairman of the Republican National Committee 1973ā1974, U.S. Liaison to the People's Republic of China 1974ā1975, candidate for Republican nomination for President of the United States 1980, Vice President of the United States 1981ā1989, President of the United States 1989ā1993. First cousin of George Herbert Walker III. George Herbert Walker III (1931āpresent), U.S. Ambassador to Hungary, candidate for Republican nomination for U.S. Representative from Missouri 1992. First cousin of George H.W. Bush. John M. Walker, Jr. (1940āpresent), Judge of U.S. Court of Appeals, U.S. District Court Judge in New York 1985ā1989. First cousin twice removed of David Davis. Craig Roberts Stapleton (1945āpresent), U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic 2001ā2004, U.S. Ambassador to France 2005āpresent. Cousin-in-law of George Herbert Walker III and John M. Walker, Jr.. David Davis IV (1906ā1978), Illinois State Senator 1953ā1967, delegate to the Illinois Constitutional Convention 1969 1970. Great-grandson of David Davis. George W. Bush (1946āpresent), candidate for U.S. Representative from Texas 1978, delegate to the Republican National Convention 1988, Governor of Texas 1995ā2000, President of the United States 2001ā2009. Son of George H.W. Bush. John E. Bush (1953āpresent), Chairman of the Dade County, Florida Republican Party; Florida Secretary of Commerce 1987ā1988; candidate for Governor of Florida 1994; Governor of Florida 1999ā2007. Son of George H.W. Bush. Elizabeth Walker Field (1947āpresent), delegate to the Republican National Convention 2004. Cousin of George W. Bush. "You started a war with the Germans. Why would we fight your war for you? When the European war you started became a problem for us, we started fighting, and then we saved your pasty pansy asses. Odd that you are proud of this era of British failure and American might." Sorry, I don't see any evidence here. Does all your research come from Hollywood? Britain only declared war on Germany because Germany invaded Britain's ally, Belgium. We were the last major power in Europe to enter WWI, you cannot possibly claim that we caused it. Now explain your claim that America 'saved' Britain? "I don't remember mentioning TV. Evidence you say? Here you are, In his book Late Victorian Holocausts, published in 2001, Mike Davis tells the story of famines that killed between 12 and 29 million Indians. These people were, he demonstrates, murdered by British state policy. When an El NiƱo drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan plateau in 1876 there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the viceroy, Lord Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent its export to England. In 1877 and 1878, at the height of the famine, grain merchants exported a record 6.4m hundredweight of wheat. As the peasants began to starve, officials were ordered "to discourage relief works in every possible way". The Anti-Charitable Contributions Act of 1877 prohibited "at the pain of imprisonment private relief donations that potentially interfered with the market fixing of grain prices". The only relief permitted in most districts was hard labour, from which anyone in an advanced state of starvation was turned away. In the labour camps, the workers were given less food than inmates of Buchenwald. In 1877, monthly mortality in the camps equated to an annual death rate of 94%. As millions died, the imperial government launched "a militarised campaign to collect the tax arrears accumulated during the drought". The money, which ruined those who might otherwise have survived the famine, was used by Lytton to fund his war in Afghanistan. Even in places that had produced a crop surplus, the government's export policies, like Stalin's in Ukraine, manufactured hunger. In the north-western provinces, Oud and the Punjab, which had brought in record harvests in the preceeding three years, at least 1.25m died. So, you were saying how Britain just wanted to help out undeveloped nations like India....or some such non-sense. Please continue..." You make it seem as if Britain commanded the weather to cause famine and starvation to millions of Indians and then you judge according to mordern moral guidelines that Britains following actions were highly immoral. If you are going to make any attempt to judge people's actions in history, you must judge them according to the moral laws of that era. The British created the infrastucture of India that is vital to its economy to this very day. The Indians have built very little railways since their indipendance (even though they rely on them so much). If it wasn't for Britain India wouldn't even exist. If another empire had unified it then it would have been the Dutch, French or the Japanese. And the totalitarian Monarchy of France or the militarisitic dictatorship of Japan would have treated the Indians far worse than Britain ever could. It's thanks to Britain's policy of free global trade and no-interference with business that allowed India's economy to advance. Before Britain had set foot in the sub-continent, India was made up of disunited principalities which relied on an agricultural-based to survive. And please don't use newspapers to back up your arguments, they often take moral potshots at the British Empire because they know that two-century-old dead people can't argue back. Side: Nah..You wanna go curling, ay?
You imply that all politicians and members of Government are superior in character to their fellow men? And how does being in the upper class make you superior to people in the lower class? No I don't imply that. Maybe you should read it again. I don't see how what I wrote could possibly be interpreted that way. There's a whole section of wikipedia set aside to list your American political dynasties, you have the whole alphabet to choose from. Because someone makes a wiki site, does not make it so. Since we know what constitutes a dynasty is "a succession of rulers of the same line of descent" we can all see that a dynasty is not evident here. The key word above is "succession". Absolutely 0 of your listed relatives served in succession and only 2 (George Herbert Walker III, and George W. Bush) were even "rulers". So you are absolutely wrong and anyone can see that. Now explain your claim that America 'saved' Britain I have done so, back in the other thread you started on this subject. Let me go get it and drag it over here. Well we can start with the 1941 Lend lease act signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt which gave a total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $647 billion today) worth of supplies to the allies to fight WW2, absolutely free of charge. The U.K. received $31.4 billion in tanks and guns and planes to defend their little island, all of which they squandered. Of course, it wasn't long before the Luftwaffe was bombing the shit out of London and the U.K. was back at our doorstep begging again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ So the U.K. was completely decimated, starving, without ammunition, and were about to be wiped from the face of the earth by the Nazis. Then we saved you with our economic prosperity and sense of charity. We sent you everything you needed free of charge. Your own ancestors probably would have starved to death without it and then we wouldn't be able to have this lovely conversation 70 years later. Wouldn't that be a shame. You make it seem as if Britain commanded the weather to cause famine and starvation to millions of Indians False. Didn't you even read what I quoted from these books. (not newspapers) In the north-western provinces, Oud and the Punjab, which had brought in record harvests in the preceeding three years, at least 1.25m died When an El NiƱo drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan plateau in 1876 there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the viceroy, Lord Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent its export to England. In 1877 and 1878, at the height of the famine, grain merchants exported a record 6.4m hundredweight of wheat. If you are going to make any attempt to judge people's actions in history, you must judge them according to the moral laws of that era. No I don't have to. It's not a game of lesser evils, some things are just wrong. If everyone else was acting in a fucked up way because of the era, it doesn't excuse people's actions. Slavery, imperialism, rape and murder have always been wrong. The British created the infrastucture of India that is vital to its economy to this very day. The Indians have built very little railways since their indipendance (even though they rely on them so much). If it wasn't for Britain India wouldn't even exist. If another empire had unified it then it would have been the Dutch, French or the Japanese. And the totalitarian Monarchy of France or the militarisitic dictatorship of Japan would have treated the Indians far worse than Britain ever could. It's thanks to Britain's policy of free global trade and no-interference with business that allowed India's economy to advance. Before Britain had set foot in the sub-continent, India was made up of disunited principalities which relied on an agricultural-based to survive. And please don't use newspapers to back up your arguments, they often take moral potshots at the British Empire because they know that two-century-old dead people can't argue back. The same argument could be made about native americans, not that I'm making it. Native Americans do have a much better infrastructure due to the slaughter of their people, loss of their lands and destruction of their culture. Do you think African Americans are better off too, due to European slavery? They did end up in more developed nations. No, that way of thinking is barbaric. The British had no right to set foot in India. Americans had no right to do what we did. It's an embarrassment, not something to be proud of. Millions of Indians died because your government viewed them as property of the crown instead of individuals with rights that are created equal. It's not something to be proud of and India certainly does not owe Britain it's "thanks". Side: Yes, declare independance
"No I don't imply that. Maybe you should read it again. I don't see how what I wrote could possibly be interpreted that way. " You claimed that because the Queen is born into Government it's a sign that Britain is unequal, which implies that you view positions in Government and politics as superior to other forms of occupation. "Because someone makes a wiki site, does not make it so." Quite often it does, you're going to need more than generic philosophies to dispute facts. "Since we know what constitutes a dynasty is "a succession of rulers of the same line of descent" we can all see that a dynasty is not evident here. The key word above is "succession". Absolutely 0 of your listed relatives served in succession and only 2 (George Herbert Walker III, and George W. Bush) were even "rulers". So you are absolutely wrong and anyone can see that. " I've clearly given you a list of nearly a thousand American politicians whose descendants have become politicians. This clearly shows that in America people do not have equal opportunity to become politicians, as being a descendant of a politicians increases your chances. By the way I'm not the one who coined the term 'American political dynasty'. They are used by the media and accepted by politicians and political analysts "I have done so, back in the other thread you started on this subject. Let me go get it and drag it over here. Well we can start with the 1941 Lend lease act signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt which gave a total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $647 billion today) worth of supplies to the allies to fight WW2, absolutely free of charge. The U.K. received $31.4 billion in tanks and guns and planes to defend their little island, all of which they squandered. Of course, it wasn't long before the Luftwaffe was bombing the shit out of London and the U.K. was back at our doorstep begging again." I can't believe how easy you've made this for more, I'm just going to copy and paste my argument from the other debate. "IT was America who made huge military failures. In the D-Day landings, which many people argue was crucial to the allies victory, the American invasion of Ohama beach was nearly a failure due to the bad planning and execution. Half of the amphibious tanks were launched too far out and sank, of the 16 that actually landed only 2 survived (The American divisions later had to borrow tanks from the British). Your American Air Force, bombed 3 miles behind the beach and missed their target, the US Army plan included equipment that had been obsolete in WWI. The reason the British were more successful in both their beaches was due to their experience and armoured assault vehicles." "So the U.K. was completely decimated, starving, without ammunition, and were about to be whipped from the face of the earth by the Nazis." Shows how clearly great you weren't with your 'lend lease', all the supplies you sent just got destroyed or stolen by the Germans in the Arctic. "Then we saved you with our economic prosperity and sense of charity. We sent you everything you needed free of charge." We and won the Battle of Britain before you had even entered the war and that was a turning point of the War, the only other major turning point was the Battle of Stalingrad, done by our Russian allies, who succeeded without American support. Then all of a sudden, when we're starting to win, America joins in the war. Just like WWI. And the supplies you lent us were not free of charge. We had only just finished paying them off in 2005. "Your own ancestors probably would have starved to death without it and then we wouldn't be able to have this lovely conversation 70 years later. Wouldn't that be a shame." It's a shame that the only thing you Americans can be proud of in WWII, is sending us lunch. While we did all the real fighting. If it wasn't for us, America would be half German and half Japanese, then we wouldn't be able to have this lovely conversation 70 years later. "In the north-western provinces, Oud and the Punjab, which had brought in record harvests in the preceeding three years, at least 1.25m died When an El NiƱo drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan plateau in 1876 there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the viceroy, Lord Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent its export to England. In 1877 and 1878, at the height of the famine, grain merchants exported a record 6.4m hundredweight of wheat. " Lord Lytton, held the firm belief that the market alone would be able to provide for the Indian farmers and that giving them relief would only cause laziness. Everything he did, he considered it for the best. You cannot condemn him for sending British goods back to Britain. "No I don't have to." Stop sulking like a child and debate properly. "It's not a game of lesser evils, some things are just wrong." Yes it is the lesser of two evils, you cannot possibly be comparing the British Empire to some magical utopia, then of course there would be a billion faults in it. There would be a billion faults in everything if you compared it to the perfect concept. When analysing how good something is you have to consider what it could have otherwise been. "The same argument could be made about native Americans, not that I'm making it. Native Americans do have a much better infrastructure due to the slaughter of their people, loss of their lands and destruction of their culture." The British Empire stop the westward expansion of the 13 colonies because they wanted to leave land for the Native Americans. Of course some of the colonists didn't like this and it was one of the causes for the revolution. It was the Americans who slaughtered the Native Americans, stole their land and destroyed their culture. The British rarely committed such acts against their colonies, and any times these events did happen they were openly expressed against in Britain. To give you a concept of the difference lets compare our two examples. The Native Americans, taken over by the Americans, are now a forgotten people. The Indians, taken over by the British, are now a powerful economic nation with their own space program. "Do you think African Americans are better off too, due to European slavery? They did end up in more developed nations. " The British just moved the slaves to America, it was you Americans who lynched them. "No, that way of thinking is barbaric." Of course it is, to the modern day way of thinking. As I said you have to compare to the Era. Everything in history is 'barbaric' if you compare it to the modern world. "The British had no right to set foot in India." Actually, we saved India from the French. The original reason Britain first started a colony in India was purely to open trade routes, it was only after the French started conquering land that the British decided to conquer it too. "Americans had no right to do what we did." You're right, us in civilised Europe had abolished slavery, it just took you longer to catch up to our standards. "It's an embarrassment, not something to be proud of." I know, but we cannot forget history. "Millions of Indians died because your government viewed them as property of the crown instead of individuals with rights that are created equal." Every Government in charge of a huge population has to look at the people has to view the people as commodities, it's done in economics. "It's not something to be proud of and India certainly does not owe Britain it's "thanks"" India certainly does. Side: Nah..You wanna go curling, ay?
He's being no more of a Nazi than you are, you constantly harp on about the brilliance and might of America a country built on Racism and Murder, remember you are living on stolen land, you claim in one of your posts that the Natve American is better off now that you've stolen his land and destroyed the infrastructure of the country that he relied on to survive and shuffled him off to the crappy bits of the country whilst the White Man kept the good land. Really somthing to be proud of. Side: Nah..You wanna go curling, ay?
I'm not, that's exactly the opposite of what I said. Read it again. "It's an embarrassment, not something to be proud of." - Me Axmeister was saying how much better off India was due to British imperialism in India. My point was that his way of approaching the subject is barbaric. If we were going to think of it in his barbaric way, the native Americans should thank us for slaughtering them as well, which is of course ethnocentric and totally ridiculous. The same argument could be made about native americans, not that I'm making it. Native Americans do have a much better infrastructure due to the slaughter of their people, loss of their lands and destruction of their culture... No, that way of thinking is barbaric. The British had no right to set foot in India. Americans had no right to do what we did. It's an embarrassment, not something to be proud of. Read again until you understand. Side: Yes, declare independance
You can't deny though that you are always going on about how great and civilized America is compared to other countries and attack others who disagree with you. You call Axmeister a Nazi because of what he said about British ooccupation of India, at least Britain gave India back, America is still stolen land and Native Americans are still not as equal as the white man, i'd have thought a country set up on bullshit like this with a history of genocide behind it would be difficult to defend let alone praise as being more civilised and forward thinking than the rest of the world Side: Nah..You wanna go curling, ay?
Native Americans are still not as equal as the white man, i'd have thought a country set up on bullshit like this with a history of genocide behind it would be difficult to defend let alone praise as being more civilised and forward thinking than the rest of the world Natives are not treated equal in America, in many cases they are treated better. I happen to work in the gaming industry here in Washington state. Most of the time I work in non-tribal casinos, but most casinos are owned by native tribes here. If you are a white guy working in a tribal casino, you can be replaced at any time if a native American applies for your job. Natives are given hiring preference and you can be laid off if a Native American wants your job here. So maybe you shouldn't get your info from old western movies. Native Americans are treated quite well here. Side: Yes, declare independance
Dont act like a Prick just because i'm not American does'nt mean I get all my information from Westerns, so you think everything is ok for the Native Americans because tribe's in Washington and California are doing well from their casinos whilst other tribes who dont live near populous areas who cant get the customers in are living in poverty, what about the tribes that live in crushing poverty with no running water who have been constantly let down by the American Government who have constantly broken the promises made to help them. Really impressive maybe you ought to educate yourself about your own country either that or keep drinking the Koolaid. Side: Nah..You wanna go curling, ay?
What we say is Bollocks not Bullocks not having a dig or anything just thought you might wanna know. Now onto my main dispute, I dont know how much you know about Britain and I dont want to sound condescending or anything but having a Queen does not make the UK the totalitarian nightmare so many people seem to think it is, the Queen is really not much more than a figurehead yes she can intervene in the lawmaking but this has not been attempted by the present Queen and the last one that tried was overturned and the law was passed anyway. We have an elected government who make the laws and govern the country, the same way you guys have an elected president and in most ways we have the same freedoms as you guys do, in some cases more freedoms. Side: Nah..You wanna go curling, ay?
|