|
|
Post by thomas on May 13, 2023 18:30:43 GMT
Sober up, Thomas, you are British. You became so when your failed little empire left you bankrupt and since that date you were profitting on the same empire as England, which became the British Empire.
Perhaps it's worth pointing out that the Scots and the Irish were also prodigious slave owners. Hence why so many black people have Scottish and Irish surnames. well we we end the uk , we make a solemn promise to offer the argentinians our share of las malvinas , we offer the spanish our share of gibraltar ,and we promise to help empire countires get reparation from london.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on May 13, 2023 18:30:53 GMT
Perhaps it's worth pointing out that the Scots and the Irish were also prodigious slave owners. Hence why so many black people have Scottish and Irish surnames. I agree it was probably more a Scottish and Irish Empire than an English one. Once Scotland got in on the act after the Union there was no holding her back and the sons of Empire were largely Scottish. It was a Scotsman that stopped the Thugs in India and another that stopped the delightful little Indian proclivity of burning alive widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. Those two things alone probably saved millions of lives during the existent of British rule in India. What bastards we were. And that's exactly why it's so problematic when people choose which parts of history they wish to represent.
Perhaps India should return all of the cultural/industrial/scientific/trade treasures that they received from the Empire?
Perhaps they should start by ripping up the railways?
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 13, 2023 18:33:15 GMT
Perhaps it's worth pointing out that the Scots and the Irish were also prodigious slave owners. Hence why so many black people have Scottish and Irish surnames. I agree it was probably more a Scottish and Irish Empire than an English one. Once Scotland got in on the act after the Union there was no holding her back and the sons of Empire were largely Scottish. It was a Scotsman that stopped the Thugs in India and another that stopped the delightful little Indian proclivity of burning alive widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. Those two things alone probably saved millions of lives during the existent of British rule in India. What bastards we were. is that the level we are at now sandy ? First of all we are told the jocks wanted in on the empire action england already started prior to 1707 , and now we are being told in 2023 it was all the jocks and paddies fault.
like i said on another thread , there are a lot of mentally ill people around.
|
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on May 13, 2023 18:37:07 GMT
Perhaps they should start by ripping up the railways? [/div][/quote] I'd guess the railways were only built to facilitate the mechanisms of empire. And I'm pretty sure it was Indian Labour who did the hard work, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 13, 2023 18:39:15 GMT
I agree it was probably more a Scottish and Irish Empire than an English one. Once Scotland got in on the act after the Union there was no holding her back and the sons of Empire were largely Scottish. It was a Scotsman that stopped the Thugs in India and another that stopped the delightful little Indian proclivity of burning alive widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. Those two things alone probably saved millions of lives during the existent of British rule in India. What bastards we were. And that's exactly why it's so problematic when people choose which parts of history they wish to represent.
Perhaps India should return all of the cultural/industrial/scientific/trade treasures that they received from the Empire?
Perhaps they should start by ripping up the railways?
i tell you squeaky , there are some dumb peoiple about , then there is you. A turncoat who cant even get his basic grasp of history correct. India wasnt a barren uncivilised wasteland that you civilised and took technology to.
The old mughal empire was one of the richest on the planet , due to the textile trade , responsible for at the time 25 % of global gdp. If i recall correct , it was the english ambassador to the mughal court in the 17th century that was seen as the backward barbarian from a backward little nation on the edge of europe by the mughal emperor.
stop making excuses and give back the stuff you nicked mate.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on May 13, 2023 18:41:35 GMT
Perhaps they should start by ripping up the railways? I'd guess the railways were only built to facilitate the mechanisms of empire. And I'm pretty sure it was Indian Labour who did the hard work, anyway. Then we're on the same page: All the more reason to scrap it, then. Well done, Wally - even you've seen sense.  |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 13, 2023 18:46:35 GMT
I agree it was probably more a Scottish and Irish Empire than an English one. Once Scotland got in on the act after the Union there was no holding her back and the sons of Empire were largely Scottish. It was a Scotsman that stopped the Thugs in India and another that stopped the delightful little Indian proclivity of burning alive widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. Those two things alone probably saved millions of lives during the existent of British rule in India. What bastards we were. is that the level we are at now sandy ? First of all we are told the jocks wanted in on the empire action england already started prior to 1707 , and now we are being told in 2023 it was all the jocks and paddies fault.
like i said on another thread , there are a lot of mentally ill people around.
No, far more complex, but there is little doubt the Scottish economy bounded away within a few decades of the Union and Scottish representation in Empire was far more than her representation in the UK. I am not in the blame game just stating the facts. There is little doubt that the act of Union played its part in the Scottish Enlightenment which removed politicians from Scotland and dumped them in England, just as we dumped them all back again in Edinburgh. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 13, 2023 18:57:46 GMT
India is not the only country that claims the Koh-i-Noor. The governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran have also said the diamond belongs to their respective countries.
Meanwhile the UK claims that the diamond was obtained legally in an 1846 treaty.
So it’s a no then……
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 13, 2023 19:05:10 GMT
is that the level we are at now sandy ? First of all we are told the jocks wanted in on the empire action england already started prior to 1707 , and now we are being told in 2023 it was all the jocks and paddies fault.
like i said on another thread , there are a lot of mentally ill people around.
No, far more complex, but there is little doubt the Scottish economy bounded away within a few decades of the Union and Scottish representation in Empire was far more than her representation in the UK. I am not in the blame game just stating the facts. There is little doubt that the act of Union played its part in the Scottish Enlightenment which removed politicians from Scotland and dumped them in England, just as we dumped them all back again in Edinburgh. Eh?
investigation by the scottish historian michael lynch showed that in the decade running up to 1707 , the scottish economy was growing by 2.5 % per annum , and from 1707 on wards for the next century , the scottish economy went into freefall.
Dont understand your point? Scotland made up something like 20 % of the then uk population . Scotland never represented 20 % or more of the people administrating the empire.
you arent stating any facts. You are voicing an uninformed opinion.
Its inarguable that there were many individuals from many countires that personally benefitted for their own selfish reasons from the empire. However , conflating countries like scotland or ireland , with indivdual people who jumped aboard the empire bus is a nonsense.
If scotland and ireland the countires were so on board with empire , why were the irish in constant rebellion to englands rule , and subsequently won a war in the early twentieth century and 26 county independence?
Why was scotland in armed rebellion for the first 120 years of union , with independence movements thorughout the tweniteth century culminating in the two devolution referendums to appease those who wanted out?
Your warped historical revisionism conflcits with reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on May 13, 2023 19:09:32 GMT
Anybody care to say why for instance we return the Elgin marbles which the Greeks were going to use for hardcore and would’ve been lost anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 13, 2023 19:11:26 GMT
India is not the only country that claims the Koh-i-Noor. The governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran have also said the diamond belongs to their respective countries. Meanwhile the UK claims that the diamond was obtained legally in an 1846 treaty. So it’s a no then…… we cant hand it back because of conflicting claims , and anyway we have a bit of paper del boy found that says they gave the diamonds to us in the first place.?
lmfao benny. You will never make a diplomat mate.
How Britain stole $45 trillion from India
And lied about it.
There is a story that is commonly told in Britain that the colonisation of India – as horrible as it may have been – was not of any major economic benefit to Britain itself. If anything, the administration of India was a cost to Britain. So the fact that the empire was sustained for so long – the story goes – was a gesture of Britain’s benevolence.
New research by the renowned economist Utsa Patnaik – just published by Columbia University Press – deals a crushing blow to this narrative. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 13, 2023 19:13:57 GMT
India is not the only country that claims the Koh-i-Noor. The governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran have also said the diamond belongs to their respective countries. Meanwhile the UK claims that the diamond was obtained legally in an 1846 treaty. So it’s a no then…… we cant hand it back because of conflicting claims , and anyway we have a bit of paper del boy found that says they gave the diamonds to us in the first place.?
lmfao benny. You will never make a diplomat mate.
How Britain stole $45 trillion from India
And lied about it.
There is a story that is commonly told in Britain that the colonisation of India – as horrible as it may have been – was not of any major economic benefit to Britain itself. If anything, the administration of India was a cost to Britain. So the fact that the empire was sustained for so long – the story goes – was a gesture of Britain’s benevolence.
New research by the renowned economist Utsa Patnaik – just published by Columbia University Press – deals a crushing blow to this narrative. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938.
Yes conflicting claims are a reason why India should not be handed the diamond over other claimants . That’s diplomacy Timmy. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 13, 2023 19:19:13 GMT
we cant hand it back because of conflicting claims , and anyway we have a bit of paper del boy found that says they gave the diamonds to us in the first place.?
lmfao benny. You will never make a diplomat mate.
How Britain stole $45 trillion from India
And lied about it.
There is a story that is commonly told in Britain that the colonisation of India – as horrible as it may have been – was not of any major economic benefit to Britain itself. If anything, the administration of India was a cost to Britain. So the fact that the empire was sustained for so long – the story goes – was a gesture of Britain’s benevolence.
New research by the renowned economist Utsa Patnaik – just published by Columbia University Press – deals a crushing blow to this narrative. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938.
Yes conflicting claims are a reason why India should not be handed the diamond over other claimants . That’s diplomacy Timmy. stealing property from someone then claming you cant hand it back because you cant work out who the righfull owner is , is fucking laughable .Did you talking snake tell you to say that?
according to this article , the koh i noor was nicked by the british to symbolise their hold over the country . A bit like when you nicked that lavvie lid from perthshire and crowned your kings on it to show jock who was boss.
For the British, that symbol of prestige and power was irresistible. If they could own the jewel of India as well as the country itself, it would symbolize their power and colonial superiority. It was a diamond worth fighting and killing for, now more than ever. When the British learned of Ranjit Singh’s death in 1839, and his plan to give the diamond and other jewels to a sect of Hindu priests, the British press exploded in outrage. “The richest, the most costly gem in the known world, has been committed to the trust of a profane, idolatrous and mercenary priesthood,” wrote one anonymous editorial. Its author urged the British East India Company to do whatever they could to keep track of the Koh-i-Noor, so that it might ultimately be theirs.
At the end of the violent period, the only people left in line for the throne were a young boy, Duleep Singh, and his mother, Rani Jindan. And in 1849, after imprisoning Jindan, the British forced Duleep to sign a legal document amending the Treaty of Lahore, that required Duleep to give away the Koh-i-Noor and all claim to sovereignty. The boy was only 10 years old.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 13, 2023 19:23:10 GMT
we cant hand it back because of conflicting claims , and anyway we have a bit of paper del boy found that says they gave the diamonds to us in the first place.?
lmfao benny. You will never make a diplomat mate.
How Britain stole $45 trillion from India
And lied about it.
There is a story that is commonly told in Britain that the colonisation of India – as horrible as it may have been – was not of any major economic benefit to Britain itself. If anything, the administration of India was a cost to Britain. So the fact that the empire was sustained for so long – the story goes – was a gesture of Britain’s benevolence.
New research by the renowned economist Utsa Patnaik – just published by Columbia University Press – deals a crushing blow to this narrative. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938.
Yes conflicting claims are a reason why India should not be handed the diamond over other claimants . That’s diplomacy Timmy. ah diplomacy . Sending gun boats up the ganges and threatening ten year old boys with death if he doesnt sign the diamond away. I tell you benny , with footsoldiers like squeaky , i would be suprised if the empire could beat sri lanka in a gun fight today. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 13, 2023 19:23:21 GMT
Yes conflicting claims are a reason why India should not be handed the diamond over other claimants . That’s diplomacy Timmy. stealing property from someone then claming you cant hand it back because you cant work out who the righfull owner is , is fucking laughable .Did you talking snake tell you to say that?
according to this article , the koh i noor was nicked by the british to symbolise their hold over the country . A bit like when you nicked that lavvie lid from perthshire and crowned your kings on it to show jock who was boss.
For the British, that symbol of prestige and power was irresistible. If they could own the jewel of India as well as the country itself, it would symbolize their power and colonial superiority. It was a diamond worth fighting and killing for, now more than ever. When the British learned of Ranjit Singh’s death in 1839, and his plan to give the diamond and other jewels to a sect of Hindu priests, the British press exploded in outrage. “The richest, the most costly gem in the known world, has been committed to the trust of a profane, idolatrous and mercenary priesthood,” wrote one anonymous editorial. Its author urged the British East India Company to do whatever they could to keep track of the Koh-i-Noor, so that it might ultimately be theirs.
At the end of the violent period, the only people left in line for the throne were a young boy, Duleep Singh, and his mother, Rani Jindan. And in 1849, after imprisoning Jindan, the British forced Duleep to sign a legal document amending the Treaty of Lahore, that required Duleep to give away the Koh-i-Noor and all claim to sovereignty. The boy was only 10 years old.
I think you need to get back to watching documentaries starring Mel Gibson. If other countries claim the diamond then why should be give it to India over the other claimants ? Come back to me when you are sober Timmy. |
|
