Something needs to be done about the English.

[Zero Cool]

Yes it does. However that doesn't stop you referencing Wales, Scotland, California & Kurds........double standard?

Wales, Scotland, California & Kurds are all specific analogies rebutting your points. "Most countries in the world" is not even a broadly analgous case to Northern Ireland.

And I only made loose reference to other places for clarity. But I'll forego that & lay it out even simpler. People being "ecnomically enslaved" does not prove your point.

The people of Northern Ireland weren't just "economically enslaved". They were illegally invaded, discriminated against and harrissed much like natives of South America or Tibet, some up to this present day. Thus making a comparison between "most countries in the world" and it, superflous.

We're not discussing Kurds, we're discussing the Northern Irish which who have their own specific set of circumstances.

You asserted that by my reasoning no new countries could be birthed, I provided an example of how they could.

Maybe you should identify who the "occupiers" are.

The descendents of the British Planters (invaders).

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Wales, Scotland, California & Kurds are all specific analogies rebutting your points. "Most countries in the world" is not even a analgous case to Northern Ireland.

There is a similar situation in most countries, THAT WAS MY POINT & that is how it's analogous.

The people of Northern Ireland weren't just "economically enslaved". They were illegally invaded, discriminated against and harrissed much like natives of South America or Tibet, some up to this present day. Thus making a comparison between "most countries in the world" and it, superflous.

.........

You asserted that by my reasoning no new countries could be birthed, I provided an example of how they could.

Fair enough it was a rebuttal but one which kinda went back on what you'd said before. You said Kurds are their own specific people - Kurds are Kurds, Ulstermen are Ulstermen. You said Kurds have their own customs - as do Ulstermen. You said Kurds have a record of living in a contiguous area - as do Ulstermen. Yet Ulstermen cannot claim a country of their own, but you say Kurds can? Ok.

The descendents of the British Planters (invaders) along with the UDR/RIR.

The descendents? In what capacities?

And inform me as to how dead regiments (UDR) & regiments dedicated to protecting Northern Ireland "occupy" the land?

 

[Zero Cool]

There is a similar situation in most countries, THAT WAS MY POINT & that is how it's analogous.

No, there's not. Are you attempting to tell me that the varibles of Chinese economic exploitation are the same as the Northern Irish case? Is it just one community being exploited for racist purposes in any of these countries?

You said Kurds are their own specific people - Kurds are Kurds, Ulstermen are Ulstermen. You said Kurds have their own customs - as do Ulstermen. You said Kurds have a record of living in a contiguous area - as do Ulstermen. Yet Ulstermen cannot claim a country of their own, but you say Kurds can? Ok.

Ulstermen per se are not one specific people, they are either descendents of the native Irish or the invading British. This is totally unlike the Kurds who are one specific people with a shared culture. The inhabitants of Northern Ireland have anything but a shared culture or a shared history.

The descendents? In what capacities?

They occupy land which is not theirs, discriminate against the rightful inhabitants and in the period 1922-1969 had a policy of segregation comparable to that of apartheid-era South Africa. The British government knowingly acquiscised in this behaviour.

If there were no plantations (invasions), there would be no Northern Irish problem.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

No, there's not. Are you attempting to tell me that the varibles of Chinese economic exploitation are the same as the Northern Irish case? Is it just one community being exploited for racist purposes in any of these countries?

Yes there is.

And no I'm not. One factor is constant: the people are "economically enslaved".

Ulstermen per se are not one specific people, they are either descendents of the native Irish or the invading British. This is totally unlike the Kurds who are one specific people with a shared culture. The inhabitants of Northern Ireland have anything but a shared culture or a shared history.

They occupy land which is not theirs, discriminate against the rightful inhabitants and in the period 1922-1969 had a policy of segregation comparable to that of apartheid-era South Africa. The British government knowingly acquiscised in this behaviour.

If there were no plantations (invasions), there would be no Northern Irish problem.

Dismissive, ignorant, bigoted & narrow-minded.

 

[Zero Cool]

Yes there is.

And no I'm not. One factor is constantly: the people are "economically enslaved".

The simple varibles involved in the majority of these cases make comparing them to N.I. superflous. Most of the world is not Northern Ireland and most of N.I.'s population is not economically enslaved, it's one specific community.

Dismissive, ignorant, bigoted & narrow-minded.

The truth is often hard to take.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

The simple varibles involved in the majority of these cases make comparing them to N.I. superflous. Most of the world is not Northern Ireland.

I never claimed the variables were the same, only that the outcome is the same. So it's not superfluous to compare these cases to Northern Ireland.

The truth is often hard to take.

It's nice to see some introspection.

 

[Zero Cool]

I never claimed the variables were the same, only that the outcome is the same. So it's not superfluous to compare these cases to Northern Ireland.

Most of N.I.'s population is not economically enslaved, it's one specific community. How many Unionist's from the Waterside do you see rejected from job interviews because of their religion?

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Most of N.I.'s population is not economically enslaved, it's one specific community.

And in most of these countries there are specific communities that are "economically enslaved".

 

[Zero Cool]

And in most of these countries there are specific communities that are "economically enslaved".

But not for racist/supremicist reasons thus making such wide ranging comparisons superflous. People in Northern Ireland are economically discriminated against due to historical predjudices above anything else.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

But not for racist/supremicist reasons thus making such wide ranging comparisons superflous. People in Northern Ireland are economically discriminated against due to historical predjudices above anything else.

Almost every form - well, every form that I can think of, but I'm not going to put myself in a bind - of discrimination is for supremicist reasons.

 

[Zero Cool]

Almost every form - well, every form that I can think of, but I'm not going to put myself in a bind - of discrimination is for supremicist reasons.

OK. I'll simplify it. People in areas like China, Africa, Eastern Asia etc. are exploited because they are poor and generally lack education. This is not the case in Northern Ireland. In some cases no matter how highly you are educated the simple fact that you are a Catholic can bar you from many jobs. Such discrimination does not exist in most of the world and, as such, it is pointless comparing two such wide-ranging cases when the variables and intended result of the enslavement are totally different.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

OK. I'll simplify it. People in areas like China, Africa, Eastern Asia etc. are exploited because they are poor and generally lack education. This is not the case in Northern Ireland. In some cases no matter how highly you are educated the simple fact that you are a Catholic can bar you from many jobs. Such discrimination does not exist in most of the world and, as such, it is pointless comparing two such wide-ranging cases when the variables and intended result of the enslavement are totally different.

The variables are different, the intended result is the same - to keep a certain set of people down.

 

[Zero Cool]

The variables are different, the intended result is the same - to keep a certain set of people down.

By generalizing this could be considered accurate. However when you examine it, in the aforementioned area's it's to commonly exploit cheap labour, in Northern Ireland it's to keep Catholic's as an underclass. Two totally different outcomes.

 

[Swollen_Member]

"Not technically"? Umm, not at all.

you don't know shit.

 

[H.E. Pennypacker]

You do realize that you live on stolen land right Pennypacker?

I know that.

Do you think if the Indians asked America to give back their land, they would get it back? I don't think so.

If I am not mistaken, the native Indians only owned a part of the United States back then. I feel it is their right to regain what they used to own, no less and no more.

It's easy to point fingers at others, but try looking at your own country before you talk about others.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I do not belong to any single nation on Earth. I do not associate myself with any country. I have no pride in or belonging to any nation. That includes the United States. I do not even associate myself with the country I was born in.

What you said is totally useless considering I am not what you described me as. Sure, I may be African American because I am an African living in America, and I more or less have a U.S. citizenship, but I don't associate myself with any country.

Pennypacker, chill out, the English should give up what land? They barely own any "stolen land" anymore.

The question is not whether they still own it. The problem lies in what they've done to make up for their desctructions and how they will make up for the consequences of their occupation.

On the contrary it does matter when it was done.

Amara, you're doing absolutely nothing but looking at the legal titles of certain countries and that's all you think of. You said nothing about how it affected people, those people's governments, the land, their economies, and so on.

You're perfectly fine with the English giving up the land they once occupied, but that's not the problem here. The_Menace said it better than I did:

I think we don't take enough responsibility for the HARM we have done in the world. I don't talk about England/GB alone but about any nation that had colonies. What happens these days in Africa is a result of your politics, that's a fact. WE fucked their social structres up and then we left just like that. the consequence were and are wars etc. We are responsible for all this, yet noone seems to care. It makes me sick and I hate it.

Because of what imperialists have done, the countries they occupied had to go back to square one once they left the country. Actually, England used to occupy the land I was born in, and much like other countries it occupied, its a mess now.

While the people could have worked on fixing their problems, the English only furthered them. Sure, you may speak of few short-term things England has done for lands it occupied, but the mess it created is much bigger.

Who is blaming anyone else?

The people of England today are blaming their forefathers, but how is that making up for what they did? Its not doing anything.

It's all very noble of you to critique imperialism, but the practical implications involved in rectification have long since past due.

Tell that to the people that have suffered so much. It bothers me very much that so many people say "Oh well, there's no turning back now. What's happened has happened."

I know very well that the English monarchy has lots of money. They begin making up for what their country did back then today. The queen does not need to wear five golden rings, three diamond earings, etc.

If you are really concerned about monopolies of power and global hegemonies, as someone else suggested, take a good look at the 21st century and the US.

Why do people keep mentioning the USA?

Pennypacker, I'm getting really fucking fed up of you.

I am tired of you always using such strong language with me. Say what you have to say, but stop ridiculing me all the time. We all know you're more historically litterate.

But now you wish to act like you are just finding out about it or something?

I didn't just find out. We learned about this stuff way back in High School, but I was reminded of this topic not long ago.

I would beg that you please read considerably more on subjects before making wild statements, but I know you won't.

You're smart...because you know I won't.

 

[The.Menace]

Because of what imperialists have done, the countries they occupied had to go back to square one once they left the country. Actually, England used to occupy the land I was born in, and much like other countries it occupied, its a mess now.

While the people could have worked on fixing their problems, the English only furthered them. Sure, you may speak of few short-term things England has done for lands it occupied, but the mess it created is much bigger.

actually I don't speak of short term things. I dunno, I said exactly the same thing then u did.
But it's not only England. I hold Europe responsible for the sitatuion in Africa right now.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

you don't know shit.

You put much thought into this?

Britain does not own Canada.

As far as I'm aware Canada is a constitutional monarchy - I can only imagine that this is where your gripe is. However all it means is that Canada, like Australia, recognize a monarch - in this case the British monarch - as head of state. Canada is still a democracy with a Prime Minister & democratic goverment holding the power.

If you believe that Britain owns Canada......then you believe we could sell it?

I am tired of you always using such strong language with me. Say what you have to say, but stop ridiculing me all the time. We all know you're more historically litterate.

You know I've not always been so heavy-handed with you but you have gradually put me in a heightened state of mind.

I didn't just find out. We learned about this stuff way back in High School, but I was reminded of this topic not long ago.

I knew you didn't just find out about the topic - that was my point.

But it's not only England. I hold Europe responsible for the sitatuion in Africa right now.

And not America? Sure, Europe has done more damage in the long term but recently America has played a major role in hindering any chance of Africa getting back on her feet.

 

[Duke]

People are responsible for their actions. Not for the actions other people, who happened to be born on the same patch of Earth 500 years ago.

 

[Swollen_Member]

You put much thought into this?

Britain does not own Canada.

As far as I'm aware Canada is a constitutional monarchy - I can only imagine that this is where your gripe is. However all it means is that Canada, like Australia, recognize a monarch - in this case the British monarch - as head of state. Canada is still a democracy with a Prime Minister & democratic goverment holding the power.

If you believe that Britain owns Canada......then you believe we could sell it?

What I'm saying is, the english were the ones who originally came and occupied the aboriginal land in question. And in order for the english to do so, they had to use force, because they were infringing on the aboriginals rights. The British Monarch may be a figure head now, but when the english were pillaging, the Monarch was in full support using it's military might to sustain the English settlers in their activities.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

What I'm saying is, the english were the ones who originally came and occupied the aboriginal land in question. And in order for the english to do so, they had to use force, because they were infringing on the aboriginals rights. The British Monarch may be a figure head now, but when the english were pillaging, the Monarch was in full support using it's military might to sustain the English settlers in their activities.

Right.......but Britain does not currently "own" Canada, as you first asserted.