Two-thirds fear 'clash of civilisations' in wake of Woolwich murder

reply to post by Ek Bharatiya


So what? You want me to cry? Apologise? If you seriously think that the "Britisher" was so bad, then maybe you should consider what the Portugese, French, Dutch, Spanish and others have done... compared to them the "Britishers" were pretty tame.

Plus, do your really think that foreigners should have been treated somehow better than our very own ancestors have been treated by our own country? Your complaints are redundant and inane. Write to The Guardian - I am sure they would love to do a feature.

Originally posted by Ek Bharatiya

I still remember when Britisher's put the sign on my land which said "Dog's and Indians not allowed"!

That is so obviously Photoshopped.

reply to post by Blister


It's funny that you guys can't see that the very actions of "your" ancestors have actually contributed to the great predicaments that now face Europe and Britain. Now if the ancestors of Europe had only remained in their own borders (and by implication remained poor and hungry), you wouldn't have so many problems with "invasions". But no - no, greed took hold and thus the ancestors of Europe had to invade other peoples' lands.

And now - now, the very offspring of those same ancestors now moan and groan and squirm about being invaded themselves! It's nobody's fault that certain offspring of the ancestors of Europe feel "guilty" or feel like they have some sort of "moral obligation"; it's certainly the fault of the ancestors of Europe however who just couldn't stay in, but instead rudely shoved themselves into other peoples' lands and rudely put their feet up and raided the fridge!

reply to post by Ek Bharatiya


Calm down and do not get so emotive.

What about the 'black hole of Calcutta' en.wikipedia.org...
Those Indians were not so cuddly to the English - hey,

India was 'managed ' initially by the British East India Company, a trading organisation - it was manned by a relatively small amount of men, who married local women and had famiy in India.

It was done with the co operation of the ruling Indians,

You have have noticed from your history that the British saved India from being rampaged by swarming muslim war lords.

In the twentieth century they formed a country called Pakistan and killed a million Indians during the process of partition.

In the 21st century there are still tensions over Kashmir and 'trouble' with the muslim Northern neighbours.

Please read your history don't just 'top line' with rhetoric.

The fact is, guys, every culture and everyone's ancestors have behaved badly in the past - so let's not get too bogged down on whose ancestors did what and when.

Civilizations rise and fall. All of human advancement and innovation is not due to the White European and all of life's ills is not his fault either.

So stop trying to blame each other and each other's "ancestors" and let's look at the present and see what's going wrong.

Everyone behaved badly in the past - it's now up to us as their offspring and descendants to rectify the situation.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Ek Bharatiya

I still remember when Britisher's put the sign on my land which said "Dog's and Indians not allowed"!

That is so obviously Photoshopped.

I agree,

Originally posted by Blister
reply to post by Ek Bharatiya

 

So what? You want me to cry? Apologise? If you seriously think that the "Britisher" was so bad, then maybe you should consider what the Portugese, French, Dutch, Spanish and others have done... compared to them the "Britishers" were pretty tame.

Plus, do your really think that foreigners should have been treated somehow better than our very own ancestors have been treated by our own country? Your complaints are redundant and inane. Write to The Guardian - I am sure they would love to do a feature.

To be fair you both have a point.

Its unrealistic to paint the British as being historically saintly and passive since we forced trade at gunpoint on a large portion of the world. I say British since the empire had a high proportion of non english British. It was not an English empire as some would like to caricature it as. If you are going to celebrate the achievements of the UK you have to acknowledge the mistakes.

That said, all the western powers were doing the same at the same time and there is a valid argument to be made that the British Empire was one of the 'least bad'.

Originally posted by HomoSapiensSapiens
The fact is, guys, every culture and everyone's ancestors have behaved badly in the past - so let's not get too bogged down on whose ancestors did what and when.

Civilizations rise and fall. All of human advancement and innovation is not due to the White European and all of life's ills is not his fault either.

So stop trying to blame each other and each other's "ancestors" and let's look at the present and see what's going wrong.

Everyone behaved badly in the past - it's now up to us as their offspring and descendants to rectify the situation.

edit on 5/26/2013 by HomoSapiensSapiens because: (no reason given)

Well right now - I think part of the problem is Britain is what the Australians in the jungle in WW2 described as ' going troppo'.

In other words there are too many of us on a small island, it is crushing and cramped.

Additional to this our exit routes out have been cut off.

For example my mothers cousins are all Americans, my fathers uncles worked in Kenya / South Africa - where my dads cousins were born they then moved back to the UK briefly before moving to Canada.

I could go on and on, my family like many British/ English / Irish - familes had opportunities to move away, overseas, NOT so now.

It is impossible/ very difficult to get into the US or Canada unless you are a refugee/ illegal or very rich.

Australia and New Zealand still take plenty of Brits though but they are the other side of the world.

Africa and India no longer offer the opportunities they did.

Therefore British people are squashed here, crammed in with half the world joining us - it is a tight fit and claustrophobic.

That is the real problem, the crux of the issue - space and opportunity.

Originally posted by justwokeup

Originally posted by Blister
reply to post by Ek Bharatiya

 

Its unrealistic to paint the British as being historically saintly and passive since we forced trade at gunpoint on a large portion of the world.

That is just NOT true - the British Empire was a trading empire.

You obviously know nothing about it,

It was run by a small amount of people - not by invading armies pointing guns at peoples heads.

It would not have worked without the cooperation of the host peoples.

When they did not want us we LEFT.

reply to post by ollncasino


You still haven't replied my yet how, all the peaceful options were expired in Jallianwala Bagh massacre by Britisher's. I'm still waiting for that response. Were the people in that park plotting terrorist attacks? Were the people in that park armed and started shooting at British soldiers?

But I won't be a abscond to avoid answering difficult questions like you did:

Your argument would be more convincing if Indians didn't immediately start murdering each other as soon as the British left in 1948. The 'evil' British were preventing the Indians from killing each other. It is generally accepted that Indians murdered 500,000 of their own people, mostly women and children, when the British were forced out.

Yes, there were communal clashes which resulted in numerous deaths between Hindu's, Muslims and Sikhs. It's nobody's fault but the fault of then so called Hindustan's citizens who fell for Britisher's "Divide and Rule Policy: They shouldn't have divided themselves by Britisher's on the base of caste. creed and religion and allowed themselves to be ruled by British Empire.

It certainly doesn't explain how British expired all the peaceful options in Jallianwala Bagh massacre. I bet they didn't taught that in schools in Birmingham and London. I would like a reply on that.

Originally posted by Blister
reply to post by Ek Bharatiya

 

So what? You want me to cry? Apologise? If you seriously think that the "Britisher" was so bad, then maybe you should consider what the Portugese, French, Dutch, Spanish and others have done... compared to them the "Britishers" were pretty tame.

Plus, do your really think that foreigners should have been treated somehow better than our very own ancestors have been treated by our own country? Your complaints are redundant and inane. Write to The Guardian - I am sure they would love to do a feature.

No! I don't want you to cry at all. I was merely responding to the user's claim of glorious and courageous British history, which was anything apart from that.

reply to post by HelenConway


You are absolutely correct, I do have to thank British empire for the modernization they brought in the rural country. The input of railways was amongst them and to be frank many Indian's till date say that we would be better off if we were under British rule. But I still dont understand how Indians were brutally massacred by Britisher's on several instances and yet now when many Britisher's claim their ancestors were courageous and did everything right, it just angers me to no end. Yes, this gets me emotional when I think about how my fellow countrymen were surrounded and massacred by Britisher's inside a park indiscriminately for no other reason apart from assembling in the park.

I love football and an avid fan of MU, Chelsea and other sports club, and I never miss world cup. I love beer..all these attributes would make me half British anyway lol. I have nothing against Britain and love it like Canada, Norway but please, please do not claim glory for British history. It is anything apart from that.

I'm sorry if I sound rude or brash, I admire Britain a lot for their progress and open culture but sir, there is a point where I draw a line. The line for me is the British history and the pain and suffering which was brought upon my countrymen and if someone tries to boast about it, it just saddens me to no end.

I know a fair bit about it. If you read what i wrote it was about 'forcing trade'. It was done by combination of bribery and threat in a lot of cases. Find a local 'big man' and back him with superior firepower to overcome his rivals, then keep him sweet with money and power.

Its the only way such small number or British could control such large areas.

The Empire is a fascinating thing and if you look at it unbiased it was neither wholly good nor wholly bad.

To suggest we only left when they didn't want us any more kind of overlooks the whole (going broke fighting the 2nd world war) thing and the fact the USA didn't support european empires. Together with changes in social attitudes in the UK that is what did for it. We neither had the will nor the treasure to retain control of the empire in the post war years.

reply to post by Ek Bharatiya


Well all cultures/ countries have their bad apples, bad episodes. personally I still rage inside at the injustice of sending a whole generation of men to die in the trenches in World War 1.

I cannot express to you how sad / angry / furious I feel about that and obviously it was before I was born, but the scar that occured to Britain and other countries [ Anzacs - noted example] has never healed and is like an ugly ridge of pain, permeating our society even today.

I have never been to India - although know many Indians, the UK is full of Indians , my brother has been there 5 times and all my family, they love it.

However - India has many problems of her own making ... you know this.

Text

reply to post by justwokeup


That is just not true,
The British East India Company did NOT operate like that.

The East India Company (EIC), originally chartered as the Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies, and more properly called the Honourable East India Company, was an English and later (from 1707)[1] British joint-stock company[2] formed for pursuing trade with the East Indies but which ended up trading mainly with the Indian subcontinent, North-west frontier province and Balochistan.

The East India Company traded mainly in cotton, silk, indigo dye, salt, saltpetre, tea and opium. The Company was granted a Royal Charter by Queen Elizabeth in 1600,[3] making it the oldest among several similarly formed European East India Companies. Shares of the company were owned by wealthy merchants and aristocrats.[4] The government owned no shares and had only indirect control. The Company eventually came to rule large areas of India with its own private armies, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions.[5] Company rule in India effectively began in 1757 after the Battle of Plassey and lasted until 1858 when, following the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the Government of India Act 1858 led to the British Crown assuming direct control of India in the era of the new British Raj.

en.wikipedia.org...

It was not controlled by the British Government until the middle of the 1800s

reply to post by ollncasino


That picture may be photo shopped but the incident is not, yes there were European clubs where that sign was bore which said" Indians and dogs not allowed" on Indian soil.

In 1932, Surya Sen planned to attack the Pahartali European Club which had a signboard that read "Dogs and Indians not allowed".

Pahartali European Club attack (1932)

I'm sure they wouldn't have taught this either in junior or senior high school in the public or private schools in United Kingdom. How would you react if a Muslim opened a hotel/ club in London today with a signboard which said "Pigs and Britisher's not allowed". I'm sure there would be a furore, the politicians and the cops would be allover it and various groups would leave no stone unturned in launching attacks on them. The Indians were not allowed that privilege under British Empire.

I love football and an avid fan of MU, Chelsea and other sports club, and I never miss world cup. I love beer..all these attributes would make me half British anyway.

You think THAT makes you half British? Half the frigging world loves those things - except the English by the way. We tend to be more specific, as in we love Smith's Lager, hate anything Mancs, only know one sport - darts - and can't afford Sky tellie. (Those things are very subjective by the way).

The only thing is, you seem to have some historical hang-up over some massacre a long time ago. Now I am not suggesting that you do not have a valid point of contention, even legal redress. I am merely observing that the time and place seems very much wrong. Having read this thread I am not sure where this "user's claim of glorious and courageous British history" comes from. Indeed my country's history is rather checkered to say the least. All I am saying is that with contemporary influences impacting upon English society, certain responses are very likely to occur. To deny the English the natural right to assert their own sense nationhood is racist.

Whatever the Indians did before, during and after partition is their business. I sadly note that your response to criticism of the massive killings when the British left India (Partition) amounts to a simple, "well they shouldn't have done that." Is that a good enough response to your own people's actions?

Having said that, it is all history. I am interested in what happens in the future to my own people. Not what has happened.

Originally posted by HelenConway

Text

reply to post by justwokeup

 

That is just not true,
The British East India Company did NOT operate like that.

The East India Company (EIC), originally chartered as the Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies, and more properly called the Honourable East India Company, was an English and later (from 1707)[1] British joint-stock company[2] formed for pursuing trade with the East Indies but which ended up trading mainly with the Indian subcontinent, North-west frontier province and Balochistan.

The East India Company traded mainly in cotton, silk, indigo dye, salt, saltpetre, tea and opium. The Company was granted a Royal Charter by Queen Elizabeth in 1600,[3] making it the oldest among several similarly formed European East India Companies. Shares of the company were owned by wealthy merchants and aristocrats.[4] The government owned no shares and had only indirect control. The Company eventually came to rule large areas of India with its own private armies, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions.[5] Company rule in India effectively began in 1757 after the Battle of Plassey and lasted until 1858 when, following the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the Government of India Act 1858 led to the British Crown assuming direct control of India in the era of the new British Raj.

en.wikipedia.org...

It was not controlled by the British Government until the middle of the 1800s

edit on 26-5-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)

Yes, it did.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by starwarsisreal

The most amazing aspect of all this is the UK's long standing history of bombing, attacking invading and subjugating other nations. At one point, they had invaded so many nations that they proudly coined the term "the empire on which the sun never sets".

Just two years ago, the UK bombed Libya, a nation which had done nothing to them and which had one of the highest standards of living.

It wont be too long before Libyans start pouring into Britain. And who will the Brits blame, Moslems of-course...

Originally posted by Ek Bharatiya
reply to post by ollncasino

 

How would you react if a Muslim opened a hotel/ club in London today with a signboard which said "Pigs and Britisher's not allowed". .

edit on 26-5-2013 by Ek Bharatiya because: (no reason given)

People would find it hilarious !!
Anyway that is happening already in places like Tower Hamlets - no one says anything.

Well actually anyone who believes that Britain went into any commonwealth country on purely humanitarian lines to manage the "White man's burden" i a scoundrel and jackass!

Please google "commonwealth tariffs" and reduce your complete and utter ignorance.