Ok. Got it.
|
Ok. Got it.
Once tyrants and dictators gain power, it's hard to get rid of them, yet there are many furilla and rebels out there still fighting them so yeah helping them as you can is okay, but with caution as our own weapons we supply can be used against us and have. One thing we must remember is we also had help gaining our own independence.
Yes the french were opportunistic
Breaking the rule of the hated British was a must way back then. You know destroy the competition, as they were growing colonies all over the place too, from Canada to the Caribbean.
Yes the British were far more successful than the French but no doubt they sowed the seeds of rebellion
The French did okay with Canada, of course Canada still bends the knee to the Queen, so not a total loss..
The French never were colonists, just opportunists
You must mean something other than what you posted. It would be true only if you don't count: (Sorry for the length. Only way it would list them.)Quote:
The French never were colonists,
Albreda Anguilla Annam Antigua and Barbuda Cambodia Chandernagore Cochinchina Colonial Mauritania Colony of Niger Dahomey Dominica France Antarctique France Equinoxiale French Algeria French Cameroons French Chad French Comoros French concessions in Shanghai French Congo French Guiana French Guinea French Madagascar French Mandate for Syria and Lebanon French protectorate in Morocco French protectorate of Tunisia French Seychelles French Somaliland French Sudan French Togoland French Upper Volta Gabon Grenada Haiti Ile-Royale Iles Malouines Isle de France Ivory Coast Karikal Kwang Chou Wan Laos Mahe Malagasy Protectorate Montserrat Nevis New France New Hebrides Newfoundland Niger Oubangui-Chari Pondicherry Saint Bathelemy Saint Christophe Saint Croix Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Saint-Domingue Saint-Dominigue Sainte-Lucia Sint Eustatius Tobago Tonkin Upper Senegal and Niger Vietnam Yanaon
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...-colonies.html
and very few retain the allegiances today, the French were occupiers and independence was won with bitter conflicts. The British however, were more pragmatic and with the exception of the US did not need to be persuaded with widespread violence that hands off local government was a good idea
Or they left because they saw those bloody conflicts coming and sought to save their own arses.
a long french tradition
They aren't extinct so it must be working on some level even if they cannot just dominate.
yes there was a peaceful transition from British colonizing India right ? How about Ireland ? Another peaceful transition . How about Egypt ? Israel ? Cyprus ? The Zulus ? Boers ?Quote:
The British however, were more pragmatic and with the exception of the US did not need to be persuaded with widespread violence that hands off local government was a good idea
Well, other than all of those many and major exceptions, it was very peaceful.Quote:
yes there was a peaceful transition from British colonizing India right ? How about Ireland ? Another peaceful transition . How about Egypt ? Israel ? Cyprus ? The Zulus ? Boers ?
yes I did not get into some of the minor ones like Pontiac's rebellion against the Brits or the failed Aussie rebellions of the Eureka's, or the successful 1808 Rum rebellion that ousted Captain Bligh (the second mutiny he was involved in)Quote:
Well, other than all of those many and major exceptions, it was very peaceful.
Come on gentlemen: ALL COUNTRIES WISH THEY WERE COLONIZED BY BRITAIN! Go through your lists and evaluate all the countries colonized versus those colonized by Great Britain based upon:
1) Standard of living
2) Rate of growth
3) Allies to the U.S.
4) Continuity of governments
5) Dictatorships
6) Democracies
7) Level of education
Certainly, there are exceptions but then take into consideration those nations that held onto the English language: They are heads and shoulders above all others!
Not even the "WORLD'S SMARTEST PEOPLE" (i.e. Germans, if you don't believe them, ask them!) can contest the British colonies on terms of how the people in those lands fared AFTER the Brits left.
Imagine if the BRITISH had discover Central and South America? Those countries, undoubtedly every one of them, would have been far, far further along than they are right now in every aspect of development. If that one is hard for you to imagine, try this one: Imagine if Australia was colonized by the SPANISH? Well, right away, there would be no Aboriginal People left, they would have killed most of them and bred the others to small portions of bloodline.
You want to say Greece or Rome or, even, Iraq was the "Cradle Of Civilization"....O.K.: Let me tell you, BRITAIN WASN'T FAR BEHIND! You can credit it to luck, planning, or God's divine intervention but the facts are facts!
The English language is the language of Civilization and Civility the world over! No nation speaking the English language has ever produced any dictators....never produced any Gas Chambers...never produced any Holocaust....and we won't even get into the literary contribution of the English language....or The Magna Carta...or The United States Constitution.
Are we Blessed to be speaking English? Uhhh, Yeah!
I don't dispute that . I think anglo countries would be well served to have economic and military ties . That doesn't change the fact that the Brits held onto their empire long after their ability to do so. This was especially true in India where the cost of India nationalism cost millions of lives years before their final independence . And that was before the partition . Just check out the Bengal famine the Brits engineered in 1943 .
tomder55: The British weren't the Germans....If India was a German colony, they would have held on until someone came and SAVED the Indians. What I am getting at is that the Brits could have held-ion much longer than they did: The "holding on" capacity is really a measure of how determined and how far the "holder" is willing to go toward retaining the "holdee".....when you apply this the Britain-India relationship, the Brits look to be fairly generous.
The British were also masters at using opposing sides in a country as a leveraging tool to retain their holdings...they did so in India with Muslims Vs. Hindus and also in Canada when they imported Labrador Indians to Newfoundland to exterminate native Newfoundland Indians and when they had finished off the native Indians, they deported the Labrador Indians back off Newfoundland.
Except that the Bengal famine of 1943 was a direct result of Churchill's policies . It was not a natural famine .There was plenty of food . Churchill plundered the food to feed British troops . It was an intentional genocide as bad as Stalin ever did to Ukraine. 10 million Indians died from the policy . The problem is that we are not taught these things .WE are taught about Gandhi's non-violent protests . The truth is that his was just one movement . The rest were quite violent .
tomder55: I must plead ignorance about the Bengal Famine and certainly would not have thought it to be manmade by the Brits....Now, Churchill, he is another of history's complicated characters, and not entirely clean: When he was Minister Of War in WWI, he purposely made false statements about the Lusitania being loaded with weapons and war materials knowing that there were American citizens aboard and knowing that the Germans would clue their U-Boats in on the information to sink the ship...his whole purpose was to drag the U.S. into "The Great War"...and, it worked.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:15 AM. |