Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The most "humane" colonial empire?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 13>
Poll Question: Which of the following empires had the most "humane" colonial policy?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
14 [23.33%]
6 [10.00%]
4 [6.67%]
13 [21.67%]
2 [3.33%]
17 [28.33%]
3 [5.00%]
1 [1.67%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The most "humane" colonial empire?
    Posted: 24-Jul-2007 at 15:42
Originally posted by ChickenShoes

I can't believe the English are leading. Have we all but forgotten their treatment of the Africans, Aboriginies, and Canadian native peoples? Or even the brutal methods they used to supress the Indians in modern history...
 
LOLLOL
 
Absolutely. English were the most brutal colonial power of all. Theirs genocides account by tens of millions and they were the main source of inspiration for the hollocaust of the Nazis.
 
Not only Africans and Amerindian suffered, though. They affected all the people around the planet. They were also the starters of the international drug trade.
 
Curious "humane" people.
 
I preffer Irish people, indeed.
 
Pinguin
 
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 24-Jul-2007 at 15:43
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2007 at 16:36
Originally posted by pinguin

Absolutely.English were the most brutal colonial power of all. Theirs genocides account by tens of millions and they were the main source of inspiration for the hollocaust of the Nazis.


Well, I think you're going way overboard, I don't see how the Nazis were inspired by British colonialism. The British were generally happy to have "hewers of wood and drawers of water", they just tended to react with brutality to uprisings. But the Jews weren't exactly forming mobs and throwing stones or anything. They were just like other Germans.

Not only Africans and Amerindian suffered, though. They affected all the people around the planet.


Well that just shows the size of their empire, not how intense their brutality was. If France had an empire as big as Britain, they would have affected more populations with colonial brutality as well.

They were also the starters of the international drug trade.


Oh, hardly. Drugs have been traded across long distances since time immemorial. One of the most ancient urban centres in the Americas, Caral in Peru, actually coalesced because of a trade in drugs which caused it to become a center of trade in other things that could be exchanged for drugs.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2007 at 16:44

(1) British are quoted in Hitler "mein kampf" as a source of inspiration. The genocide of Native Americans was the inspiration for ethnic cleaning in Europe. The same British colonial idea of different "races" or castes of people.

(2) Yes, France show its brutality as well, particularly in Haiti.

(3) International drug trade was started by Britain when forced the entrance of oppium to China after the war of the same name.
 
(4) Drugs have been used in the Americas since ancient times for shamanism, as in Chavin for example. Not for hippism or drug addiction. There is a huge difference in there. Besides, chewing a coca leave is hardly the same that sniff a row of cocaine Big%20smile
 
Pinguin
 


Edited by pinguin - 24-Jul-2007 at 16:49
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 846
  Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2007 at 16:57
Originally posted by pinguin

Absolutely. English were the most brutal colonial power of all. Theirs genocides account by tens of millions and they were the main source of inspiration for the hollocaust of the Nazis.
 
 
Hitler might have got some of his ideas from the British Empire, but equating the exploits of the British Empire to the holocaust is going overboard.
 
The British did invent the concept of the "White Race" that we talk about so much of today.
Curiously, prior to the 19th century the concept of a "White Race" didn't exist, and it was invented in the Victorian Imperial to separate the colonising nations to the colonised. It was a way to use biological explanation to justify a nation's dominance.
 
"White" doesn't equate to "Caucasoid", because the latter, as an anthropological term, also includes Middle-Easterners, North Africans, Indians and South Asians, and even Sudanese and Ethiopians to some extent...
The concept that "White is superior" is a very recent concept and only came into being after the 1800s, thanks to British colonialism.
 
Hitler took what was a common social practice in British colonies and built an even more radical theory based on the "Aryan Race".
 
In fact, I really wish that countries like the USA could stop using "White" and "non-White" as ethnic classification, because "Whiteness" was a victorian political race, rather than anything with any biological, anthropological, or even cultural significance.
 
Back to Top
The_Jackal_God View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 13-Dec-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 157
  Quote The_Jackal_God Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2007 at 19:03
i went with the french, considering their extensive building of schools and the goal of building up native intellegentsia.

they saw themselves not as frenchifying but rather as modernizing, and truth be told, they should've been given more time.

i think france's record in africa is much better than her colleagues.  
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2007 at 21:40
Originally posted by pinguin

Absolutely. English were the most brutal colonial power of all. Theirs genocides account by tens of millions and they were the main source of inspiration for the hollocaust of the Nazis.
 
But wait a minute, didn't all the other Empires fight really really hard to keep their empires when they didn't have the power to, while the British at the end of WWII chose to withdraw on the whole quite peacefully? That sounds rather enlightened. The British crafted their imperial policy to suit realities, unlike a lot of other powers who would do it for the pomp of being called an empire.
 
And also, who says the British were worse? Overall, they ran their empire more humanely than say, the Belgians.
 
Not only that, many british colonies today are among the most successful in the world. The ones which were most receptive to British ideas and culture are generally the ones who have developed best.
 
And also, where is your proof the Nazis copied the British? Seems to be that if the Nazis wanted to copy a contemporary in setting up concentration camps, they would need only look to the Soviet gulags. Apart from that, the Nazis were sufficiently hateful to come up with a range of original ideas all on their own. Sure, Hitler might admire the Brits for building an empire, but Hitler admired everything which was an example of strength and power, it doesn't mean he copied them in everything. I bet you Hitler thought the Romans were pretty great too, shall we also blame the Roman Empire for the holocaust?
 
Originally posted by pinguin

(3) International drug trade was started by Britain when forced the entrance of oppium to China after the war of the same name.
 
The drug trade flourished in many parts of the world long before the British showed up. India had a particularly rich drug trade. People in both India and China had been taking opium long before the British showed up. Only difference was that the British took control of India, and India had opium of a far superior quality to that of China. Back then, of course, "drugs" was not a word with such a negative connotation as today. It was just another commodity like sugar, or coffee or any range of Indian spices.
 
Originally posted by pinguin

(4) Drugs have been used in the Americas since ancient times for shamanism, as in Chavin for example. Not for hippism or drug addiction. There is a huge difference in there. Besides, chewing a coca leave is hardly the same that sniff a row of cocaine Big%20smile
 
Well if you know what the Payati (I think I spelt it wrong) cactus does, you would have to conclude the Native Americans were using drugs to have psychadelic experiences just like other people in the world. The aim of opium wasn't to be a hippy or an addict either, it was recreation.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2007 at 22:37
Originally posted by The_Jackal_God

i went with the french, considering their extensive building of schools and the goal of building up native intellegentsia.

they saw themselves not as frenchifying but rather as modernizing, and truth be told, they should've been given more time.

i think france's record in africa is much better than her colleagues.  
 
France? Please, France had a terrible humanitarian record in Haiti
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2007 at 22:50
Originally posted by Constantine XI

...
 And also, who says the British were worse? Overall, they ran their empire more humanely than say, the Belgians.
 
Perhaps a little bit more human, but the scale of the British empire was bigger. Britain should accept its past and not pretend it was a perfect nation, because it wasn't.
 
 
Originally posted by Constantine XI

...
Not only that, many british colonies today are among the most successful in the world. The ones which were most receptive to British ideas and culture are generally the ones who have developed best.
 
As I say before, economical success doen't erase the genocides of the past. Besides Britain is lagging with respect to Asia, today. Morality is not measured in dollars or pounds.
 
  
Originally posted by Constantine XI

...
And also, where is your proof the Nazis copied the British? Seems to be that if the Nazis wanted to copy a contemporary in setting up concentration camps, they would need only look to the Soviet gulags. Apart from that, the Nazis were sufficiently hateful to come up with a range of original ideas all on their own. Sure, Hitler might admire the Brits for building an empire, but Hitler admired everything which was an example of strength and power, it doesn't mean he copied them in everything. I bet you Hitler thought the Romans were pretty great too, shall we also blame the Roman Empire for the holocaust?
 
 
Just the law of action and reaction. Europe spread hate around the world, Europe paid for it with its own homegrown monster: Hitler.
 
 
Originally posted by Constantine XI

... 
 
Well if you know what the Payati (I think I spelt it wrong) cactus does, you would have to conclude the Native Americans were using drugs to have psychadelic experiences just like other people in the world. The aim of opium wasn't to be a hippy or an addict either, it was recreation.
 
Yeap! Recreation against the will of the Emperor of China. What an humilliation for the Celestial Empire!!!
 
With respect to drugs in the Native Americans, some of them have them and used,mostly for ritual purposses. It were the hippies, though, with theirs revolution of the flowers, which created a new market for drugs worldwide.
 
Remember Eric Clampton singing "Cocaine"?
 
Well, the criminals of Colombia listened LOLLOL
 
It is no mystery that one of the first drugs lords loved John Lennon, do you guess why? Big%20smile
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 24-Jul-2007 at 22:51
Back to Top
The_Jackal_God View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 13-Dec-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 157
  Quote The_Jackal_God Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2007 at 23:03
heh, europe paying for hitler...and stalin.

yes, france had a bleak spot on its history with the case of Haiti. and i don't like how they suppressed syrian indepedence in 1922.

but overall, in comparison with the two other major colonizers, the British and the English, they come out on top, a little ahead of the Spanish, and way ahead of the English. 
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2007 at 23:12
Originally posted by pinguin

Perhaps a little bit more human, but the scale of the British empire was bigger. Britain should accept its past and not pretend it was a perfect nation, because it wasn't.
Size of Empire is an indication of power, not morality. And the British were sometimes very harsh (e.g. Tasmania) and at other times their invasions were among the least bloody and cruel (e.g. mainland Australia). Just as Britain's Empire was large, so its imperial experience was varied as it spanned every continent and many centuries. One bad experience in one part of the world at one time doesnt mean the whole empire was bad everywhere all the time.
 
Originally posted by pinguin

As I say before, economical success doen't erase the genocides of the past. Besides Britain is lagging with respect to Asia, today. Morality is not measured in dollars or pounds.
 
Personally I would feel better knowing my ancestral society was destroyed if the invaders replaced it with something that today's people benefit from today. For example, most West Europeans feel pretty good about Rome. It's public baths, roads, aquaducts and city organisation gave society a push in the right direction - and today we benefit from that. The Romans were nasty to be sure, raping and killing on a massive scale. But unlike the Vikings, for example, they made a much more positive impact in the long term. So I think it does matter if some long term benefit came out of an invasion, as opposed to if a broken society was not replaced with any form of improvement.
 
Originally posted by pinguin

Just the law of action and reaction. Europe spread hate around the world, Europe paid for it with its own homegrown monster: Hitler.
 
Sorry buddy but you need to provide more evidence than that. I don't believe in karma so you will have to provide historical evidence to show that overseas colonisation resulted in Hitler launching WWII. Saying "it happened because they deserved it" is not proper history.
 
Originally posted by pinguin

Yeap! Recreation against the will of the Emperor of China. What an humilliation for the Celestial Empire!!!
 
With respect to drugs in the Native Americans, some of them have them and used,mostly for ritual purposses. It were the hippies, though, with theirs revolution of the flowers, which created a new market for drugs worldwide.
 
Remember Eric Clampton singing "Cocaine"?
 
Well, the criminals of Colombia listened LOLLOL
 
It is no mystery that one of the first drugs lords loved John Lennon, do you guess why? Big%20smile
 
 
LOL
 
Well it's true that the 60s was really the age in which a strong drug culture began to develop, mostly with the emergence of new types of drugs in the Western world. Previously, opium, tobacco and alcohol had been most people's drug of choice - and opium wasn't even that common in the West. With the spread of marijuana and new chemical based drugs, partiers, layabouts, hippies and celebrities had a whole new world of fun little treats to help them get off their tits. Compared to what is around today, they actually seem quite tame.


Edited by Constantine XI - 24-Jul-2007 at 23:15
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2007 at 23:59
Originally posted by Constantine XI

..
Size of Empire is an indication of power, not morality. And the British were sometimes very harsh (e.g. Tasmania) and at other times their invasions were among the least bloody and cruel (e.g. mainland Australia). Just as Britain's Empire was large, so its imperial experience was varied as it spanned every continent and many centuries. One bad experience in one part of the world at one time doesnt mean the whole empire was bad everywhere all the time.
.
 
I can agree on that. Even more, it seem Britain tried to correct itself while time passed, which is something possitive in its favor.
 
Originally posted by Constantine XI

..
 
Personally I would feel better knowing my ancestral society was destroyed if the invaders replaced it with something that today's people benefit from today. For example, most West Europeans feel pretty good about Rome. It's public baths, roads, aquaducts and city organisation gave society a push in the right direction - and today we benefit from that. The Romans were nasty to be sure, raping and killing on a massive scale. But unlike the Vikings, for example, they made a much more positive impact in the long term. So I think it does matter if some long term benefit came out of an invasion, as opposed to if a broken society was not replaced with any form of improvement.
.
 
Viking made a possitive contribution in Britain as well. At least that's what the history channel said once LOL
 
 
Originally posted by Constantine XI

.. 
Sorry buddy but you need to provide more evidence than that. I don't believe in karma so you will have to provide historical evidence to show that overseas colonisation resulted in Hitler launching WWII. Saying "it happened because they deserved it" is not proper history.
 
 
Not because it was predestined, or Karma at all. Just because the success of British colonization awake envy in Germans, so they tried to copy the methods.... Nazis didn't read the book of contemporary Britain, though, but of its origins as a pirate, genocide and slave trading nation of centuries already gone.
 
 
Originally posted by Constantine XI

..
Well it's true that the 60s was really the age in which a strong drug culture began to develop, mostly with the emergence of new types of drugs in the Western world. Previously, opium, tobacco and alcohol had been most people's drug of choice - and opium wasn't even that common in the West. With the spread of marijuana and new chemical based drugs, partiers, layabouts, hippies and celebrities had a whole new world of fun little treats to help them get off their tits. Compared to what is around today, they actually seem quite tame.
 
It was the blessing of drugs what matters. The baby boomer generation was the main promoter of drug consumption ever.
 
Pinguin
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 25-Jul-2007 at 00:00
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 00:57
Originally posted by pinguin

Perhaps a little bit more human, but the scale of the British empire was bigger. Britain should accept its past and not pretend it was a perfect nation, because it wasn't.


Well that would presume that they didn't accept their past and do pretend they are a perfect nation, which is hardly the case at all. British introspection over the colonial period is extremely well-documented and is also a part of the common culture and popular perceptions.

Just like most of the other ex-colonial powers.
Morality is not measured in dollars or pounds.


I'll agree with you there. The modern success or lack thereof of former colonies doesn't tell us anything about how brutal or humane the empires who founded them were. South Africa is probably the wealthiest of all African nations, and yet the history there is chock full of brutality. New Guinea, on the other hand, experienced very little or no brutality but today is quite poor.

Recreation against the will of the Emperor of China. What an humilliation for the Celestial Empire!!!


Oh well then, that's not brutality, just one empire humiliating another empire.

It were the hippies, though, with theirs revolution of the flowers, which created a new market for drugs worldwide.


Common misconception. Drugs were actually far more widely available and far more widely used before WW1 than during the Sixties (in the US, prior to the Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914). You could get diacetyl morphine (heroin) injection kits at the general store or pharmacy, and people did.

Edited by edgewaters - 25-Jul-2007 at 00:58
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 01:19
Originally posted by pinguin

Not because it was predestined, or Karma at all. Just because the success of British colonization awake envy in Germans, so they tried to copy the methods.... Nazis didn't read the book of contemporary Britain, though, but of its origins as a pirate, genocide and slave trading nation of centuries already gone.
I do see what you are saying, but what I am searching for is proof. Many nations in Europe had large empires and became wealthy because of them, Britain's was simply the most magnificent in scale. As I was saying earlier, the Nazis valued anything which demonstrated power, lack of compromise and a dauntless belief in the rightness of one's own nation of people. So the Nazis looked to any empire which was an example of that. Britain was one, Rome another, the Holy Roman Empire at its height another. So what makes you think that it was specifically Britain that inspired Nazi ideals?
 
You are saying there is a process here. At the beginning of the process, Britain carves out an empire using some immoral methods. Then, Nazis take note of those methods and develop them further. Finally, Nazis apply these super methods and the result is WWII and all that follows. Therefore, Britain causes the Nazis to cause WWII.
 
I think this is flawed. Firstly, you need to provide a direct link showing Britain's policy influencing Nazi policy, e.g. Britain did something, a Nazi writer took note of it, the Nazis started doing it. Secondly, you need to guarantee the Nazis would not have done all the awful things they did if Britain never existed. I personally think they would have gone right ahead, used their imaginations and still come up with awful methods.
Back to Top
Tar Szernd View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 384
  Quote Tar Szernd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 01:19

What about the concentration camps for Boers in South-Africa?

Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 01:22
Originally posted by Tar Szernd

What about the concentration camps for Boers in South-Africa?

 
It is possible the Nazis picked up on that. It's also possible they copied concentration camps from the USSR modelled on the Siberian gulags. Until someone presents direct evidence linking one to the other, all we have is speculation, which isn't proof.
Back to Top
Patch View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 19-Apr-2006
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 119
  Quote Patch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 04:23
Originally posted by Constantine XI

Originally posted by Tar Szernd

What about the concentration camps for Boers in South-Africa?

 
It is possible the Nazis picked up on that. It's also possible they copied concentration camps from the USSR modelled on the Siberian gulags. Until someone presents direct evidence linking one to the other, all we have is speculation, which isn't proof.
 
The Germans were running death camps (not concentration camps - there is a big difference) in Namidia before ww1.  The Herero Genocide in what was then German South West Africa was also characterised by the German attention to detail - they deligently recorded each death, again another characteristic about the Holocaust. 
 
Concentration camps where also used in the 1890s in Cuba by the Castilians so not a British invention.
Back to Top
HEROI View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
  Quote HEROI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 06:08

I m split between the Ottoman and the British empires,Had not Britain behaved the way it did in africa (specially in Kenia) I would have given my vote to Britain but in the ottoman empire there was quite an equal treatment of all peoples thats why it stands out as an example.Very hard ,i m not sure,i think that colonianism in itself is evil,and setting to colonise is settin to kill people,burn civilisations,rape cultures,enslave and rip other human being of dignity and belonging,and above all colonising is taking away from people the freedom they enjoy within their comunity to which they identify themselves.For me all colonial powers are equaly guillty and equaly inhumane.

 

I would though like to point out Belgium in the Congo as the worst example of inhumanity in human history.

Me pune,me perpjekje.
Back to Top
HEROI View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
  Quote HEROI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 06:15
By the way my vote did not go to any of them,for the reason that is something wrong with the way the question is put ( looks like the guy is journalist or somethingErmm) Is asking who is the most humane as if the colonial empires were in some sort of competition on who would behave most humanly,and now we the spectators of history give our vote to whom we think is the most humane,is wrong,in this way we give credit to an particular colonial empire for being the least cruel,and the least inhumane,
 
I sugest the Poll question be changed in to ,Which empire do you think was the most INHUMANE.And then i would cast my vote.
 
Ps.i did not vote in the current poll.
Me pune,me perpjekje.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 06:47
 
Originally posted by pinguin

(1) British are quoted in Hitler "mein kampf" as a source of inspiration. The genocide of Native Americans was the inspiration for ethnic cleaning in Europe. The same British colonial idea of different "races" or castes of people.

a) Hitler admired the British for their achievements. As anyone would, really.
b) the genocide of native Americans was not done by Britons or for that matter Englishmen, but by Americans of all sorts of different ancestries. In the timespans and areas of North America controlled by Britain, native Americans were treated far, far better than those in the US. Which for example is why the Blackfeet found Canada a convenient refuge, and is one of the reasons for the American war of independence in the first place.
c) the concept of different 'races' or castes' of people is present in all civilisations since time immemorial, and even in pre-civilised hunter-gatherer communities. To call the idea 'British' is simply lunatic.
(2) Yes, France show its brutality as well, particularly in Haiti.
(3) International drug trade was started by Britain when forced the entrance of oppium to China after the war of the same name.
That's as daft as saying the British invented racism. Granted Britain fought the opium wars, but to say that they invented the drug trade is just stupid. How do you think the Chinese got the habit in the first place?
 
(4) Drugs have been used in the Americas since ancient times for shamanism, as in Chavin for example. Not for hippism or drug addiction. There is a huge difference in there. Besides, chewing a coca leave is hardly the same that sniff a row of cocaine Big%20smile
Well, no. And smoking a joint or sniffing glue or injecting heroin or swallowing ecstasy tablets are hardly the same either.
 
I suppose you believe the British were responsible for all of those too?
 
Pinguin
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 07:10
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
....
 
I suppose you believe the British were responsible for all of those too?
 
If you believe in the Black Legend of Britain (like most Hispanics do LOL), then of course Britain is guilty of all the evil of modern world Big%20smile. No doubt about it.
 
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 13>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.100 seconds.