Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
The Falkland Islands: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Tell Argentina to STFU
Posts
BritishEnglish people are just born genocidal murderers (my mustache for twirling is coming along slowly but surely) who will gleefully murder innocent sailors by shooting at a hostile battlecruiser during a war (Imagine the headlines; Adm. Nimitz cancels Battle Of The Coral Sea: "Japs weren't heading directly towards us at the time so it seemed wrong to attack them"), perhaps we might return to discussing the future? The geopolitical implications are still there, still evolving, still interesting.The US declaration of independance should really say...
"As god is my witness, I refuse to pay even a fraction of one penny for my own defence in a war that I've stirred up with the locals!"
Birtish forces had turned back, and blunted the major french attacks, including the deployment of the imperial guard who had routed. The British forces had then counterattacked, and themselves become overextended and begun to rout. At that point the Prussians arrived. If they had NOT arrived, it would likely have been a draw as while the British would have withdrawn from their attacks and taken heavy casulties, the French were in no state to stage a counter-counter attack on the British positions. The British and French would likeley have both quit the field the next day, and the war would have continued. Napoleon would likely have got the worst of the day overall.
It's best to not blame the entire political persuasion on a single person being an asshole. Sure, there are liberal progressive assholes, it doesn't mean we all are. Not all conservatives or Republicans are lost causes, either. It's better to judge when there are various policies and attitudes from multiple people from different backgrounds then on a single person IMO.
Japan has done this, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_history_textbook_controversies
Everyone does this. But when they do, open-minded historians can find other sources, often in other languages, to find out the truth. We have plenty of first-hand accounts of Nanjing, rapes during the occupation of Japan, Boer concentration camps or Guantanamo abuses to read.
Ender got angry when asked to produce sources or anything more than being sure the Anglos were evil, because I don't think they exist.
Actually, while the claimed reason for the tax was covering the war, the British government had already taken the money out colonial government coffers, so it was basically the same as the Bank of America fees: a money grab based on a bullshit excuse.
Of course, this also ignores the long history of other offenses by the British crown, such as abolishing what elected government there was in the colonies and installing frequently despotic crown governors (the worst offenses were in the birthplace of the revolutionary movement, where the colonial charter, which guaranteed self-rule, was illegally replaced by an appointed governor who evicted the dead from the burying grounds so he could build the Anglican King's Chapel). And then there's the fact that, in response to growing dissatisfaction, the crown sent in troops, who frequently carried the plague, took colonist jobs by moonlighting, and set cities ablaze through poor fire safety precautions.
With my admittedly poor knowledge of US history, I'm under the impression that we (and by we I mean the British) were taxing the colonies but they were not allowed any kind of representation in parliament and from I read above, any kind of elected representative at all. Not the smartest of moves really.
The truth is they like it without you.
With all the social healthcare
and better economy
you can keep your country
We prefer the Union Jack.
Basically. We didn't care about paying taxes, we just wanted a say in how those taxes were introduced. There are a whole list of grievances in the declaration of independence beyond "we don't want to pay for the French and Indian war".
Tibet's political history is actually kind of... troubling. So nope, everyone is shitty.
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
Well then, you might have some trouble getting used to the St George's Cross once that comes to pass.
The American revolution is just one of those moments in British history where I think "well...its our own bloody fault really". It boggles my mind that no one thought "we'll tax them like a borough in england but won't allow them to have an MP in parliament like boroughs in england get" was a bad idea.
You live, you learn, you get devolution. I tell you though, it'd be much more convenient for ME if we'd had a more amiable breakup.
I just found the statement funny given how things are going in Scotland.
My ancestors fought and died for Scottish independence, so however the vote goes, things are a lot better now than they ever were you smug goose.
Things are going toward independence, meaning that there's a chance that the union will be over and the Jack therefor retired.
The British also made a critical mis-step when they passed the Quebec act that stated that Catholics were real people too. That rather inflamed sentiment in the colonies against Britain.
Considering there was no problem continuing to use the Irish saltire on the union jack, and being British we do what the fuck we like with symbols (unlike the US with their uptight Flag Code, the Union Jack isn't even the legally mandated flag), I think you're just being silly.
Huh, I always thought that they just used Ulster as an excuse to keep it.
I think we can agree that any version of history where one side is portrayed as good, right and just and the other side as faceless, inhuman evildoers is probably a load of crap. The American elementary school version of their own history is no exception. You'd think people would be able to figure this out with common sense seeing how life is pretty much lived in the grey area between black and white, but no, they can't.
He lives on as cheezburger grease in our hearts.
I also think it's cute that in a thread where you've been doing your best to decry Evil British Imperialism(tm), that you'd make a smug comment about Scotland being allowed to secede peacefully if they choose.
Hahaha oh my no. Are you one of those people who think the early twentieth century UK governments wanted to keep Northern Ireland? Out of the sheer mustache twirling evil of their imperialistic hearts?
You say "allowed" - there is probably a higher percentage of people in England who'd like to dissolve the union than there are in Scotland. It's just that a fair number of those don't think it would be very good for Scotland. And now: Back to the Falklands.
Come to think of it, the Viscount Of Falkland after whom the Islands are named was Scottish*. Let's introduce the concept of ceding them to Scotland after Scottish independence. How about that?
*Anglophobes invariably conflate British imperialism with English imperialism. But Scotsmen were enthusiastic participants at all levels of the project.
People tend to conflate British anything as equivalent to English if they're not particularly attentive to foreign affairs, history, or geography. England is arguably the most prominent component of British-ness but many seem to forget that Britain is actually comprised of three countries.
Well.. nobody really cares about Wales so I guess that omission can be forgivable.
To be fair to the rest of us, the English spent a good bit of time making us think that.
Hey, you're the one who decided to act like I was saying that the vote going one way would cause Scotland to burn down or some shit. I'm still trying to figure out why you brought your ancestors into this. People saying that losing Scotland would be the end of Great Britain isn't exactly a new analysis.
I thought they were using the excuse to not have to replace all the flags, which would be kind of expensive. Losing Scotland, on the other hand, would leave England, some Scots in the north of Ireland, and whatever Wales is (shut up, not even the Welsh care). Of course, the impression that the UK was trying to take everything over isn't exactly unfounded, as the early 20th century was when Britain's colonialism devolved into kleptomania. It kept pissing off the Persian government by trying to expand the area of de facto British control into parts with no oil.
I think the fact that these questions of secession can be seriously brought up without fear of civil war shows that we've come a long way as a nation, and it also shows that the people hinting that the Falklands are some kind of last gasp exercise in imperialism are a set of ignorant fuckwits.
Good thing I never said that. Actually, the fact that any mention of separation gets this response is actually the first evidence I've seen that this is a real worry, so thanks for letting me know that everyone in the UK is going to die.
I'm saying it isn't a worry.
Yes, but the fact that you keep bringing it up unprovoked makes one worry. It's like the proper response to exchange "You know, this is my first time flying and I'm kind of edgy" "shut up, there's no bomb, how dare you suggest there's a bomb:" "Wait, WHAT? There's a bomb, isn't there?"
Happy now?
So: Falklands.
He's a goose. You're feeding him. Literally everyone else in the thread already knows you're right except bagginses, and as you've pointed out he's too dense/obstinate/Anglophobic to be talked round with any combination of words in the English language.
He lives on as cheezburger grease in our hearts.
Just like an Anglo to insist on only using English. It shouldn't even be called English. It should be American as there are more native speakers here. Calling it English just helps keep Elizabeth's Imperial Jackboot on former colonies' throats.