BNP snubbed at EU

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by Freeborn
Many former colonies would like to see a return to Empire days.

for example?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
There are many people, both black and white, in African countries like Kenya, Zimbabwe etc who would like to see a return to colonial rule purely due to the rampant and endemic corruption and totally inefficient management and government.

Corruption is rampant and endemic in a lot of these countries with wealthy elites exploiting the natural resources and aid far worse than 'we' ever did.

that's called the legacy of empire. when you say "wealthy elites", who do you mean, exactly?

It's no secret that ruling elites in most African countries control most industry and milk their countries assets dry.
In addition, the vast majority of foreign aid never reaches those it is intended for as people take 'their cut' at every level.

I also think it is a mistake that many make to judge the acts and deeds of yeasterday by the morals and standards of today.

i disagree, that statement is akin to saying that so long as a person feels justified in what they do they have the right to do it.

No it means nothing of the sort.
It means what it says.
The morals that governed the actions of people 1000 years ago are very different to the morals that we live by today.
When we use our morals to view and judge yesterdays actions then we have a very skewed opinion.
Put oneself in that situation, then..remembering that societies standards..and then judge.
If Britain had not gained her Empire then someone else would have done, but that someone else would not have ran it as efficiently and would probably have been more brutal and repressive, just look at the devestation brought upon The America's by Spain...and are today's Spanish constantly castigated about the actions of their ancestors....NO.



[edit on 14/7/09 by Freeborn]

Originally posted by Freeborn
www.abovetopsecret.com...
There are many people, both black and white, in African countries like Kenya, Zimbabwe etc who would like to see a return to colonial rule purely due to the rampant and endemic corruption and totally inefficient management and government.

i think you must have provided the wrong link or something, i don't see what this has to do with african countries. have you any sort of support material or is it just your personal opinion that they "many people" wish for a return to colonialism. what numbers and percentages are involved here?

It's no secret that ruling elites in most African countries control most industry and milk their countries assets dry.

secret or not, you seem unwilling to divulge, again, who do you mean exactly?

In addition, the vast majority of foreign aid never reaches those it is intended for as people take 'their cut' at every level.

so what? what has that got to do with anything?

Put oneself in that situation, then..remembering that societies standards..and then judge.

a german officer is told to solve the jewish question, his society says that the jews are sub human and should be wiped from the face of the planet, is it therefore right for him to set up a gas chamber?

yeah, i know, "thats not the same thing", i'll ask now, why not, exactly.

If Britain had not gained her Empire then someone else would have done, but that someone else would not have ran it as efficiently and would probably have been more brutal and repressive, just look at the devestation brought upon The America's by Spain...and are today's Spanish constantly castigated about the actions of their ancestors....NO.

i have lumped all europeans in together from the start, so don't whine at me for that. "if we hadn't done it someone else would have" isn't a good excuse either. i won't tell you why, i don't see a need, i'm just surprised you wrote it.

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by pieman
you could but it'ld be utter tosh. the wealth generated was redistributed briefly, largely in the direction of the US, but the worldwide social order had been re-established within 20 years and remains largely unchanged today.

You don't seem to familiar with events that came about at the end of WW2 and which continued right up until the early 1990's.

After WW2, the entire of western Europe was a decimated battlefield, rebuilt on the back of high-interest US loans, of which the UK only finished repaying in 2005/6. So no, any wealth "redistibuted" to the US by the Europeans did not come back. The colonies of the European powers were "liberated" on condition of the these loans, to enable US corporations and Government to expand their own sphere of influence to combat the USSR and further their own national interest.

Had the UK not been litterally forced into giving up the Empire, wealth, development and the benefits of organised society would have spread out to Africa organically.

As it was, the nations that were released were done so quickly, without any real planning or foresight and as a result, they quickly collapsed into anarchy. Many of the African colonies, prior to "liberation", had functioning, Government with education, transport and emerging health systems. After "liberation", many of these institutions fell into disrepair and poor management.

Many former colonies suffered repeated coups, dictatorships and poor governance, leading to their arrested development. Many of these oppressive regimes were propped up or even supported in their power grabs by either the US or USSR as a means to expand and cement their own spheres of influence.

The fact that Africa is a pile o'crap now is not down to anything the European nations did, but rather a result of Cold War superpowers playing them off as proxies.

The period of Empire, at least in the British Empire, actual saw great strides in modernising Africa as well as the rest of the world. What happened after we left had nothing to do with us and as such, it is not our responsibility.

You seem to be under the nonsense left-wing revisionist sentiment that everything bad in the world can be blamed on colonialism, whereas it can be clearly shown that those colonies fared alot better under impreial rule than they have ever managed without.

Originally posted by pieman
depends on what you call a problem, as i said, you see a problem where i see a responsibility.

The problem is the flood of immigrants into already overcrowded countries ill-equipped to deal with massive rises in population. It isn't racism, it is pragmatism. The UK can only support a certain amount of people given current resources and letting more people in that is way above normal organic growth will only strain those resources. No amount of left-wing apologist historical revisionism will change that simple fact.

I agree with you 100%

I find it funny how the British are blamed for everything though.

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by pieman
how countries with falling birthrates and an aging population can be considered over populated or ill equipped to deal with immigration is beyond me, i guess you'll need to explain that leap in logic to me.

Our island is overpopulated as it is, so surely falling birthrates is a good thing? Besides, whilst the media likes to portray the fact that without immigrants the Brits will all die out in 10 years, the truth of the matter is the birth rate is around 1.95 children/woman, which is just ever so slightly under the amount needed to stabalise the population. Some regions report a birth rate of 2.1/woman, which is obviously a growth. We don't need an extra 3 million people in 10 years to bolster anything.

Average birth rate of the native British family is 1.4, and average european is now 1.1