FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > India vs Pakistan
India vs Pakistan
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
The conflict is as old as the two countries.
It has always been an asymmetric conflict though as India is so much larger.
Pakistan has used proxies and terrorist groups to further their ends before with the intelligence service often operating independently of, and sometimes against, the regular military and civilian government to further its own strategic goals.
This looks like the fall out of one of those adventures, but if this was in retaliation to something done by India previously, who can say.
It is becoming a hot war though, which is yet another unwelcome worry on the international stage... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Who are the baddies in this one?
The British..  "
Not far wrong.
The standard Colonial divide and rule with the added excitement of an arbitrary date and incompetent leaders with little knowledge or understanding of the complexities of the problem. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The Indians have a better batting attack but the Pakistanis always seem to have a mystery bowler. As long as they aren't throwing the game of course!  "
A game of cricket would be a civilised way to solve the Kashmir issue.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"i think your find the history goes back a lot further than British rule.
Suprised the EU hasn't been blamed yet, or Tony Blair
Why would they blame them?
Theyd blame Corbyn of course."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"i think your find the history goes back a lot further than British rule.
Suprised the EU hasn't been blamed yet, or Tony Blair  Why do that when you can knock the British,everything that has ever happened in the world has bee our fault according to some people. "
Why would you blame the British for south America .
They never went near there.
Pakistan v India
Palestine v Israel
Catholic v Protestant ( N.I ).
Admiral Sir John Hawkins .
The Common Denominator ?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"i think your find the history goes back a lot further than British rule.
Suprised the EU hasn't been blamed yet, or Tony Blair Why do that when you can knock the British,everything that has ever happened in the world has bee our fault according to some people. "
Very true |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"The Indians have a better batting attack but the Pakistanis always seem to have a mystery bowler. As long as they aren't throwing the game of course!
A game of cricket would be a civilised way to solve the Kashmir issue.."
16th June at Old Trafford. The two play eachother in the World Cup!
Could be interesting! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"i think your find the history goes back a lot further than British rule.
Did either India or Pakistan exist before British rule?
When did their "history" start?"
India gained their independence in 1947 from the British.
The people in the region now is Pakistan got their independence the same year.
Then Bangledish broke away from Pakistan and got their independence in 1971.
I learnt something new today hey
They have always been fighting amongst themselves way before the British got involved.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"i think your find the history goes back a lot further than British rule.
Did either India or Pakistan exist before British rule?
When did their "history" start?
India gained their independence in 1947 from the British.
The people in the region now is Pakistan got their independence the same year.
Then Bangledish broke away from Pakistan and got their independence in 1971.
I learnt something new today hey
They have always been fighting amongst themselves way before the British got involved.
"
it goes well back to the 1200,s mate we might have divided the country but it was for a reason to stop them killing each other when we left.Maybe not the smartest move but think it was done in the best interest at the time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"The Indians have a better batting attack but the Pakistanis always seem to have a mystery bowler. As long as they aren't throwing the game of course!
A game of cricket would be a civilised way to solve the Kashmir issue..
16th June at Old Trafford. The two play eachother in the World Cup!
Could be interesting!"
last time they played in a world cup in england they also had a game where stuff was going on in the background...
the p.a must have been a bit of a scally because everyones walking on music became "kashmir" by led zepplin....... i kid you not..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"i think your find the history goes back a lot further than British rule.
Did either India or Pakistan exist before British rule?
When did their "history" start?
India gained their independence in 1947 from the British.
The people in the region now is Pakistan got their independence the same year.
Then Bangledish broke away from Pakistan and got their independence in 1971.
I learnt something new today hey
They have always been fighting amongst themselves way before the British got involved.
it goes well back to the 1200,s mate we might have divided the country but it was for a reason to stop them killing each other when we left.Maybe not the smartest move but think it was done in the best interest at the time."
Had nothing to do with best interest of them ,
All to do with the Ability to grow Tea in Kenya along woth other African Countries.
The Empire was being forced to pay more money for Tea & the slaughter of Muslimsnby Hindus & then reprisals by muslims ( or the other way around )
Jinah , nehru & ali were 3 politicians all 3 anglicised lawyers who grew to detest each other.
British Historian Patrick French said it could have been avoided.
Liberty or Death written by French claims the personalities of the politicians led to the growing hatred.
Britain thought it was allowing the Muslims Safety by granting the 1st Islamic Country to exist.
( I Wonder whether any of the nut nuts around now would have been here if not for that event ).
The Tea growth in Africa allowed the Empire to withdraw & not enough planning went into it.
Bit like Israel & Palestine without the Tea.
NB: Technically Bangladesh broke away from India in 1971 & was called East Pakistan. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"i think your find the history goes back a lot further than British rule.
Did either India or Pakistan exist before British rule?
When did their "history" start?
India gained their independence in 1947 from the British.
The people in the region now is Pakistan got their independence the same year.
Then Bangledish broke away from Pakistan and got their independence in 1971.
I learnt something new today hey
They have always been fighting amongst themselves way before the British got involved.
it goes well back to the 1200,s mate we might have divided the country but it was for a reason to stop them killing each other when we left.Maybe not the smartest move but think it was done in the best interest at the time.
Had nothing to do with best interest of them ,
All to do with the Ability to grow Tea in Kenya along woth other African Countries.
The Empire was being forced to pay more money for Tea & the slaughter of Muslimsnby Hindus & then reprisals by muslims ( or the other way around )
Jinah , nehru & ali were 3 politicians all 3 anglicised lawyers who grew to detest each other.
British Historian Patrick French said it could have been avoided.
Liberty or Death written by French claims the personalities of the politicians led to the growing hatred.
Britain thought it was allowing the Muslims Safety by granting the 1st Islamic Country to exist.
( I Wonder whether any of the nut nuts around now would have been here if not for that event ).
The Tea growth in Africa allowed the Empire to withdraw & not enough planning went into it.
Bit like Israel & Palestine without the Tea.
NB: Technically Bangladesh broke away from India in 1971 & was called East Pakistan."
So you agree then that they were killing each other for centuries before the british were there?.That was the original point i was making you cant blame the British for everything.Thank you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"i think your find the history goes back a lot further than British rule.
Did either India or Pakistan exist before British rule?
When did their "history" start?
India gained their independence in 1947 from the British.
The people in the region now is Pakistan got their independence the same year.
Then Bangledish broke away from Pakistan and got their independence in 1971.
I learnt something new today hey
They have always been fighting amongst themselves way before the British got involved.
it goes well back to the 1200,s mate we might have divided the country but it was for a reason to stop them killing each other when we left.Maybe not the smartest move but think it was done in the best interest at the time.
Had nothing to do with best interest of them ,
All to do with the Ability to grow Tea in Kenya along woth other African Countries.
The Empire was being forced to pay more money for Tea & the slaughter of Muslimsnby Hindus & then reprisals by muslims ( or the other way around )
Jinah , nehru & ali were 3 politicians all 3 anglicised lawyers who grew to detest each other.
British Historian Patrick French said it could have been avoided.
Liberty or Death written by French claims the personalities of the politicians led to the growing hatred.
Britain thought it was allowing the Muslims Safety by granting the 1st Islamic Country to exist.
( I Wonder whether any of the nut nuts around now would have been here if not for that event ).
The Tea growth in Africa allowed the Empire to withdraw & not enough planning went into it.
Bit like Israel & Palestine without the Tea.
NB: Technically Bangladesh broke away from India in 1971 & was called East Pakistan."
I learn something everyday.
Maybe ALL countries should stop fiddling in other countires afairs.
How we managed to come out of Africa as homo sapian without knocking ten bells out of each other blows my mind. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"i think your find the history goes back a lot further than British rule.
Did either India or Pakistan exist before British rule?
When did their "history" start?
India gained their independence in 1947 from the British.
The people in the region now is Pakistan got their independence the same year.
Then Bangledish broke away from Pakistan and got their independence in 1971.
I learnt something new today hey
They have always been fighting amongst themselves way before the British got involved.
it goes well back to the 1200,s mate we might have divided the country but it was for a reason to stop them killing each other when we left.Maybe not the smartest move but think it was done in the best interest at the time.
Had nothing to do with best interest of them ,
All to do with the Ability to grow Tea in Kenya along woth other African Countries.
The Empire was being forced to pay more money for Tea & the slaughter of Muslimsnby Hindus & then reprisals by muslims ( or the other way around )
Jinah , nehru & ali were 3 politicians all 3 anglicised lawyers who grew to detest each other.
British Historian Patrick French said it could have been avoided.
Liberty or Death written by French claims the personalities of the politicians led to the growing hatred.
Britain thought it was allowing the Muslims Safety by granting the 1st Islamic Country to exist.
( I Wonder whether any of the nut nuts around now would have been here if not for that event ).
The Tea growth in Africa allowed the Empire to withdraw & not enough planning went into it.
Bit like Israel & Palestine without the Tea.
NB: Technically Bangladesh broke away from India in 1971 & was called East Pakistan.
I learn something everyday.
Maybe ALL countries should stop fiddling in other countires afairs.
How we managed to come out of Africa as homo sapian without knocking ten bells out of each other blows my mind. "
Its been going on since the birth of mankind Egyptian,greek,roman,german,british,russian,chinese etc i could go on.Dont think it will ever stop to be honest. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Incredible that all the complex issues in the world are explained away with a simple phrase "the British".
I really wish that I could be blessed with such insight.
Of course the problems cannot have anything to do with religious dogma or modern political difference based upon historical prejudice. It wouldn't be politically correct to suggest that would it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
Did anyone watch Lucy Worsley on BBC4 last night?
The Fibs of British History, similar to the one she did about America.
All about the fact and fiction of the British in India.
And how the British kept re-inventing themselves to erase the misdemeanours.
Fascinating stuff.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Did anyone watch Lucy Worsley on BBC4 last night?
The Fibs of British History, similar to the one she did about America.
All about the fact and fiction of the British in India.
And how the British kept re-inventing themselves to erase the misdemeanours.
Fascinating stuff.
"
History is always written by the winners |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Did anyone watch Lucy Worsley on BBC4 last night?
The Fibs of British History, similar to the one she did about America.
All about the fact and fiction of the British in India.
And how the British kept re-inventing themselves to erase the misdemeanours.
Fascinating stuff.
"
Yeah I watched it ..the east India company was brutal so we sacked them off and made Victoria empress and gave all the mogul princes nice badges to wear of Victoria.
Classic... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"i think your find the history goes back a lot further than British rule.
Did either India or Pakistan exist before British rule?
When did their "history" start?No but their religions did."
India was as mixed between Muslims and Hindus.
The wars in "India" were between principalities just as in Europe.
Religuous conflict was relatively rare.
Britain created a religious divide, artificially splitting religions.
By definition the India-Pakistan conflict could not have existed before the British created them.
14 million people were displaced and upto 2 million died during partition.
Nothing to do with the British
Not everything is laid at the feet of Empire because people still choose to behave how they do, but don't try to wipe your hands of it either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Incredible that all the complex issues in the world are explained away with a simple phrase "the British".
I really wish that I could be blessed with such insight.
Of course the problems cannot have anything to do with religious dogma or modern political difference based upon historical prejudice. It wouldn't be politically correct to suggest that would it?"
See above. Have a think, then just insist that the British Empire only brought cricket and railways |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Love the way people say "the British". We're all British my friends! Apart from shag obviously. "
We aren't "the British" who had an Empire or ran the triangular slave trade.
It was still "the British" though.
Perhaps "the British" did not win two world wars?
Do we only accept the up-side?
The Germans aren't the ones who fought in WWI.
It was still "the Germans" though.
Is that the problem? It's taken as a current personal insult rather than just a matter of historical fact that could just be accepted and learned from. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Love the way people say "the British". We're all British my friends! Apart from shag obviously.
We aren't "the British" who had an Empire or ran the triangular slave trade.
It was still "the British" though.
Perhaps "the British" did not win two world wars?
Do we only accept the up-side?
The Germans aren't the ones who fought in WWI.
It was still "the Germans" though.
Is that the problem? It's taken as a current personal insult rather than just a matter of historical fact that could just be accepted and learned from."
So why bring it up? Why not just answer the question..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Love the way people say "the British". We're all British my friends! Apart from shag obviously.
We aren't "the British" who had an Empire or ran the triangular slave trade.
It was still "the British" though.
Perhaps "the British" did not win two world wars?
Do we only accept the up-side?
The Germans aren't the ones who fought in WWI.
It was still "the Germans" though.
Is that the problem? It's taken as a current personal insult rather than just a matter of historical fact that could just be accepted and learned from.
So why bring it up? Why not just answer the question....."
I did, actually. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Love the way people say "the British". We're all British my friends! Apart from shag obviously.
We aren't "the British" who had an Empire or ran the triangular slave trade.
It was still "the British" though.
Perhaps "the British" did not win two world wars?
Do we only accept the up-side?
The Germans aren't the ones who fought in WWI.
It was still "the Germans" though.
Is that the problem? It's taken as a current personal insult rather than just a matter of historical fact that could just be accepted and learned from."
Are you now blaming the British for the slave trade? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Love the way people say "the British". We're all British my friends! Apart from shag obviously.
We aren't "the British" who had an Empire or ran the triangular slave trade.
It was still "the British" though.
Perhaps "the British" did not win two world wars?
Do we only accept the up-side?
The Germans aren't the ones who fought in WWI.
It was still "the Germans" though.
Is that the problem? It's taken as a current personal insult rather than just a matter of historical fact that could just be accepted and learned from.
So why bring it up? Why not just answer the question.....
I did, actually."
I also did not "bring it up". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Love the way people say "the British". We're all British my friends! Apart from shag obviously.
We aren't "the British" who had an Empire or ran the triangular slave trade.
It was still "the British" though.
Perhaps "the British" did not win two world wars?
Do we only accept the up-side?
The Germans aren't the ones who fought in WWI.
It was still "the Germans" though.
Is that the problem? It's taken as a current personal insult rather than just a matter of historical fact that could just be accepted and learned from.Are you now blaming the British for the slave trade?"
Not exclusively.
Were we significant players?
Did we grow rich off the back of it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Love the way people say "the British". We're all British my friends! Apart from shag obviously.
We aren't "the British" who had an Empire or ran the triangular slave trade.
It was still "the British" though.
Perhaps "the British" did not win two world wars?
Do we only accept the up-side?
The Germans aren't the ones who fought in WWI.
It was still "the Germans" though.
Is that the problem? It's taken as a current personal insult rather than just a matter of historical fact that could just be accepted and learned from.Are you now blaming the British for the slave trade?
Not exclusively.
Were we significant players?
Did we grow rich off the back of it?"
You can go all the way back to Egyptians and Romans for the slave trade,can i ask you are you British? if so why have you got such a downer on your forefathers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Incredible that all the complex issues in the world are explained away with a simple phrase "the British".
I really wish that I could be blessed with such insight.
Of course the problems cannot have anything to do with religious dogma or modern political difference based upon historical prejudice. It wouldn't be politically correct to suggest that would it?
See above. Have a think, then just insist that the British Empire only brought cricket and railways "
Isn't your apportionment of blame as selective as any other? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I still blame women for original sin, I mean i know Eve ate the apple, and it wasn't today's women's fault.... but i can't wait to bring it up in conversation!! And don't even get me started on who killed Jesus.....  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"i think your find the history goes back a lot further than British rule.
Suprised the EU hasn't been blamed yet, or Tony Blair Why do that when you can knock the British,everything that has ever happened in the world has bee our fault according to some people. "
In this instance, the British played a big part in the trouble between Pakistan and India. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Love the way people say "the British". We're all British my friends! Apart from shag obviously.
We aren't "the British" who had an Empire or ran the triangular slave trade.
It was still "the British" though.
Perhaps "the British" did not win two world wars?
Do we only accept the up-side?
The Germans aren't the ones who fought in WWI.
It was still "the Germans" though.
Is that the problem? It's taken as a current personal insult rather than just a matter of historical fact that could just be accepted and learned from.Are you now blaming the British for the slave trade?
Not exclusively.
Were we significant players?
Did we grow rich off the back of it?"
If my view of history was as selective as yours i could say we led the world in abolishing the slave trade and used our navel might to enforce it,but im not because i look at the whole picture. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Love the way people say "the British". We're all British my friends! Apart from shag obviously.
We aren't "the British" who had an Empire or ran the triangular slave trade.
It was still "the British" though.
Perhaps "the British" did not win two world wars?
Do we only accept the up-side?
The Germans aren't the ones who fought in WWI.
It was still "the Germans" though.
Is that the problem? It's taken as a current personal insult rather than just a matter of historical fact that could just be accepted and learned from.Are you now blaming the British for the slave trade?
Not exclusively.
Were we significant players?
Did we grow rich off the back of it?You can go all the way back to Egyptians and Romans for the slave trade,can i ask you are you British? if so why have you got such a downer on your forefathers. "
I didn't say that we invented it.
I didn't say that we were solely responsible for it.
What does "Not exclusively" mean to you?
I also referred very specifically to the triangular trade between Africa, the Caribbean and North America, and the UK.
You did not answer if we were significant players or grew rich off it. Do you not like the answer? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Love the way people say "the British". We're all British my friends! Apart from shag obviously.
We aren't "the British" who had an Empire or ran the triangular slave trade.
It was still "the British" though.
Perhaps "the British" did not win two world wars?
Do we only accept the up-side?
The Germans aren't the ones who fought in WWI.
It was still "the Germans" though.
Is that the problem? It's taken as a current personal insult rather than just a matter of historical fact that could just be accepted and learned from.Are you now blaming the British for the slave trade?
Not exclusively.
Were we significant players?
Did we grow rich off the back of it?If my view of history was as selective as yours i could say we led the world in abolishing the slave trade and used our navel might to enforce it,but im not because i look at the whole picture."
So Britain has no responsibility for anything negative that it has done?
£20 million was paid out at the time to slave owners in compensation when the slavery that we enabled was abolished.
There's every reason to be proud of leading abolition and equally to accept that in no small part we also created the problem. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Love the way people say "the British". We're all British my friends! Apart from shag obviously.
We aren't "the British" who had an Empire or ran the triangular slave trade.
It was still "the British" though.
Perhaps "the British" did not win two world wars?
Do we only accept the up-side?
The Germans aren't the ones who fought in WWI.
It was still "the Germans" though.
Is that the problem? It's taken as a current personal insult rather than just a matter of historical fact that could just be accepted and learned from.Are you now blaming the British for the slave trade?
Not exclusively.
Were we significant players?
Did we grow rich off the back of it?You can go all the way back to Egyptians and Romans for the slave trade,can i ask you are you British? if so why have you got such a downer on your forefathers. "
I don't have a downer on them.
I just accept that they did very good things and very bad things.
Do you disagree? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Incredible that all the complex issues in the world are explained away with a simple phrase "the British".
I really wish that I could be blessed with such insight.
Of course the problems cannot have anything to do with religious dogma or modern political difference based upon historical prejudice. It wouldn't be politically correct to suggest that would it?
See above. Have a think, then just insist that the British Empire only brought cricket and railways
Isn't your apportionment of blame as selective as any other?"
Can you explain to me the circumstances under which we would be discussing a conflict between India and Pakistan if Britain didn't create the two countries?
I also stated very clearly that people from both countries are responsible for their own actions now and in the past. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Love the way people say "the British". We're all British my friends! Apart from shag obviously.
We aren't "the British" who had an Empire or ran the triangular slave trade.
It was still "the British" though.
Perhaps "the British" did not win two world wars?
Do we only accept the up-side?
The Germans aren't the ones who fought in WWI.
It was still "the Germans" though.
Is that the problem? It's taken as a current personal insult rather than just a matter of historical fact that could just be accepted and learned from.Are you now blaming the British for the slave trade?
Not exclusively.
Were we significant players?
Did we grow rich off the back of it?You can go all the way back to Egyptians and Romans for the slave trade,can i ask you are you British? if so why have you got such a downer on your forefathers.
I don't have a downer on them.
I just accept that they did very good things and very bad things.
Do you disagree? "
No i dont disagree with that at all how could anyone? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Love the way people say "the British". We're all British my friends! Apart from shag obviously.
We aren't "the British" who had an Empire or ran the triangular slave trade.
It was still "the British" though.
Perhaps "the British" did not win two world wars?
Do we only accept the up-side?
The Germans aren't the ones who fought in WWI.
It was still "the Germans" though.
Is that the problem? It's taken as a current personal insult rather than just a matter of historical fact that could just be accepted and learned from.Are you now blaming the British for the slave trade?
Not exclusively.
Were we significant players?
Did we grow rich off the back of it?You can go all the way back to Egyptians and Romans for the slave trade,can i ask you are you British? if so why have you got such a downer on your forefathers.
I don't have a downer on them.
I just accept that they did very good things and very bad things.
Do you disagree? No i dont disagree with that at all how could anyone?"
In that case I don't really understand what you disagree with me about? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"
£20 million was paid out at the time to slave owners in compensation when the slavery that we enabled was abolished.
There's every reason to be proud of leading abolition and equally to accept that in no small part we also created the problem."
Not a penny to the slaves, but oodles of cash to the parliamentarians and vicars who owned "property" in the Caribbean.
Only to stave off a looming revolt among the working class here, who realised the ruling class might actually treat them like that, too.
The Government borrowed 40% of its annual budget to compensate the slave traders for the loss of "property".
It wasn't until 2015 the debt was finally repaid by you and me.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Love the way people say "the British". We're all British my friends! Apart from shag obviously.
We aren't "the British" who had an Empire or ran the triangular slave trade.
It was still "the British" though.
Perhaps "the British" did not win two world wars?
Do we only accept the up-side?
The Germans aren't the ones who fought in WWI.
It was still "the Germans" though.
Is that the problem? It's taken as a current personal insult rather than just a matter of historical fact that could just be accepted and learned from.Are you now blaming the British for the slave trade?
Not exclusively.
Were we significant players?
Did we grow rich off the back of it?If my view of history was as selective as yours i could say we led the world in abolishing the slave trade and used our navel might to enforce it,but im not because i look at the whole picture.
So Britain has no responsibility for anything negative that it has done?
£20 million was paid out at the time to slave owners in compensation when the slavery that we enabled was abolished.
There's every reason to be proud of leading abolition and equally to accept that in no small part we also created the problem."
I am not saying that we have no responsibility for anything negative that has been done what i am saying is there was conflict in india way before the british got there.Yes i do know we split the country but as i said before i think is was done to try to stop the bloodshed not to encourage it.Its never easy when a country becomes a vacuum after a power leaves and you would have thought successive governments around the world would have learnt that lesson from history but no we still had sadam,gadaffi etc deposed and look what happened.But it seems to me you find it very easy to blame Britain,times change and what was exceptable even 10 years ago is not now,so learn from history and stop looking for blame. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Love the way people say "the British". We're all British my friends! Apart from shag obviously.
We aren't "the British" who had an Empire or ran the triangular slave trade.
It was still "the British" though.
Perhaps "the British" did not win two world wars?
Do we only accept the up-side?
The Germans aren't the ones who fought in WWI.
It was still "the Germans" though.
Is that the problem? It's taken as a current personal insult rather than just a matter of historical fact that could just be accepted and learned from.Are you now blaming the British for the slave trade?
Not exclusively.
Were we significant players?
Did we grow rich off the back of it?If my view of history was as selective as yours i could say we led the world in abolishing the slave trade and used our navel might to enforce it,but im not because i look at the whole picture.
So Britain has no responsibility for anything negative that it has done?
£20 million was paid out at the time to slave owners in compensation when the slavery that we enabled was abolished.
There's every reason to be proud of leading abolition and equally to accept that in no small part we also created the problem.I am not saying that we have no responsibility for anything negative that has been done what i am saying is there was conflict in india way before the british got there.Yes i do know we split the country but as i said before i think is was done to try to stop the bloodshed not to encourage it.Its never easy when a country becomes a vacuum after a power leaves and you would have thought successive governments around the world would have learnt that lesson from history but no we still had sadam,gadaffi etc deposed and look what happened.But it seems to me you find it very easy to blame Britain,times change and what was exceptable even 10 years ago is not now,so learn from history and stop looking for blame. "
The British had a policy of divide dnd rule .There is no escaping it we kept meticulous documents and we pitted state against state on the subcontinent .Our intentions were never about stopping bloodshed it was purely about control.The British were outnumbered on the subcontinent and our policy was to divide and rule the locals.
It's a well documented fact this was British policy.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Love the way people say "the British". We're all British my friends! Apart from shag obviously.
We aren't "the British" who had an Empire or ran the triangular slave trade.
It was still "the British" though.
Perhaps "the British" did not win two world wars?
Do we only accept the up-side?
The Germans aren't the ones who fought in WWI.
It was still "the Germans" though.
Is that the problem? It's taken as a current personal insult rather than just a matter of historical fact that could just be accepted and learned from.Are you now blaming the British for the slave trade?
Not exclusively.
Were we significant players?
Did we grow rich off the back of it?If my view of history was as selective as yours i could say we led the world in abolishing the slave trade and used our navel might to enforce it,but im not because i look at the whole picture.
So Britain has no responsibility for anything negative that it has done?
£20 million was paid out at the time to slave owners in compensation when the slavery that we enabled was abolished.
There's every reason to be proud of leading abolition and equally to accept that in no small part we also created the problem.I am not saying that we have no responsibility for anything negative that has been done what i am saying is there was conflict in india way before the british got there.Yes i do know we split the country but as i said before i think is was done to try to stop the bloodshed not to encourage it.Its never easy when a country becomes a vacuum after a power leaves and you would have thought successive governments around the world would have learnt that lesson from history but no we still had sadam,gadaffi etc deposed and look what happened.But it seems to me you find it very easy to blame Britain,times change and what was exceptable even 10 years ago is not now,so learn from history and stop looking for blame. "
It was a deliberate British policy as they left Empire. Almost every country was left split along religious, ethnic or tribal lines which has kept them weak and was intended to allow Britain to retain considerable influence after leaving.
It worked for a while but we have long since lost control and left the world proliferated with conflicts seeded by us.
Other nations have done just the same in history. We just did it on a obal scale because we had a global empire.
Did people always fight? Yes. Are people fully responsible for their actions now? Yes.
Either you accept that Britain played its part in creating many of the global conflicts that we are living through or do not.
I have not at any point suggested that we are solely to blame for anything.
Specifically in the case of India, as I said before, the historic conflicts were primarily between states not religions. India was never a country. It was only ever united periodically under regional Empires. Just like Europe.
The British used religion and any other tool available to try and break-up the independence movement. It was politics. Indian politicians were not backwards in making the most of that opportunity but the religious and ethnic genie rarely returns to the bottle.
The chaos and loss of life at independence was not intended for sure but don't think that partition was a benevolent act that went wrong either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"i think your find the history goes back a lot further than British rule.
Did either India or Pakistan exist before British rule?
When did their "history" start?
India gained their independence in 1947 from the British.
The people in the region now is Pakistan got their independence the same year.
Then Bangledish broke away from Pakistan and got their independence in 1971.
I learnt something new today hey
They have always been fighting amongst themselves way before the British got involved.
it goes well back to the 1200,s mate we might have divided the country but it was for a reason to stop them killing each other when we left.Maybe not the smartest move but think it was done in the best interest at the time.
Had nothing to do with best interest of them ,
All to do with the Ability to grow Tea in Kenya along woth other African Countries.
The Empire was being forced to pay more money for Tea & the slaughter of Muslimsnby Hindus & then reprisals by muslims ( or the other way around )
Jinah , nehru & ali were 3 politicians all 3 anglicised lawyers who grew to detest each other.
British Historian Patrick French said it could have been avoided.
Liberty or Death written by French claims the personalities of the politicians led to the growing hatred.
Britain thought it was allowing the Muslims Safety by granting the 1st Islamic Country to exist.
( I Wonder whether any of the nut nuts around now would have been here if not for that event ).
The Tea growth in Africa allowed the Empire to withdraw & not enough planning went into it.
Bit like Israel & Palestine without the Tea.
NB: Technically Bangladesh broke away from India in 1971 & was called East Pakistan."
An intelligent response in a forum, woo!
I'm Indian/Kashmiri/Iranian. Both sides are so ludicrously dramatic too. I think of them as highly dysfunctional family a la Jerry springer. The nuclear aspect is terrifying, though I was amused reading their differing accounts of what's gone on.
"The blood never dried" is a great book on empire. Might be out of print though. I always try to explain neo/colonialism to my younger military dates. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Incredible that all the complex issues in the world are explained away with a simple phrase "the British".
I really wish that I could be blessed with such insight.
Of course the problems cannot have anything to do with religious dogma or modern political difference based upon historical prejudice. It wouldn't be politically correct to suggest that would it?
See above. Have a think, then just insist that the British Empire only brought cricket and railways
Isn't your apportionment of blame as selective as any other?
Can you explain to me the circumstances under which we would be discussing a conflict between India and Pakistan if Britain didn't create the two countries?
I also stated very clearly that people from both countries are responsible for their own actions now and in the past."
Isn't the point that it isn't possible to apportion responsibility using a simplistic view of the situation such as "Bash Britain" or "Bash India" or "Bash Pakistan". There were some conflicts before Clive was even a glimmer in his father's eye. There were colonial conflicts for 250 years either directly or by proxy. There were and will remain conflicts since partition. Partition may not have helped the Kashmiri question but with the circumstances that prevailed, it expedited Britain's exit from the region. If Britain had not exited in the post war world, it would not have received the financial support from the US that it needed to rebuild post WW2. More importantly, it would not have enjoyed the support of the INC and the Pakistani separatists with the consequence of a larger disaster than the many hundreds of thousands who died during the Partition troubles.
What choice did Britain actually have than to exit and effectively Partition the region?
Would it have been better tocstay andcretain whatever control was possible....unlikely that that would have saved lives then or now.
So what is your answer? Lets bash Britain.....? In my opinion, too simple an analysis my friend.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Love the way people say "the British". We're all British my friends! Apart from shag obviously.
We aren't "the British" who had an Empire or ran the triangular slave trade.
It was still "the British" though.
Perhaps "the British" did not win two world wars?
Do we only accept the up-side?
The Germans aren't the ones who fought in WWI.
It was still "the Germans" though.
Is that the problem? It's taken as a current personal insult rather than just a matter of historical fact that could just be accepted and learned from.Are you now blaming the British for the slave trade?
Not exclusively.
Were we significant players?
Did we grow rich off the back of it?If my view of history was as selective as yours i could say we led the world in abolishing the slave trade and used our navel might to enforce it,but im not because i look at the whole picture.
So Britain has no responsibility for anything negative that it has done?
£20 million was paid out at the time to slave owners in compensation when the slavery that we enabled was abolished.
There's every reason to be proud of leading abolition and equally to accept that in no small part we also created the problem.I am not saying that we have no responsibility for anything negative that has been done what i am saying is there was conflict in india way before the british got there.Yes i do know we split the country but as i said before i think is was done to try to stop the bloodshed not to encourage it.Its never easy when a country becomes a vacuum after a power leaves and you would have thought successive governments around the world would have learnt that lesson from history but no we still had sadam,gadaffi etc deposed and look what happened.But it seems to me you find it very easy to blame Britain,times change and what was exceptable even 10 years ago is not now,so learn from history and stop looking for blame.
It was a deliberate British policy as they left Empire. Almost every country was left split along religious, ethnic or tribal lines which has kept them weak and was intended to allow Britain to retain considerable influence after leaving.
It worked for a while but we have long since lost control and left the world proliferated with conflicts seeded by us.
Other nations have done just the same in history. We just did it on a obal scale because we had a global empire.
Did people always fight? Yes. Are people fully responsible for their actions now? Yes.
Either you accept that Britain played its part in creating many of the global conflicts that we are living through or do not.
I have not at any point suggested that we are solely to blame for anything.
Specifically in the case of India, as I said before, the historic conflicts were primarily between states not religions. India was never a country. It was only ever united periodically under regional Empires. Just like Europe.
The British used religion and any other tool available to try and break-up the independence movement. It was politics. Indian politicians were not backwards in making the most of that opportunity but the religious and ethnic genie rarely returns to the bottle.
The chaos and loss of life at independence was not intended for sure but don't think that partition was a benevolent act that went wrong either."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Incredible that all the complex issues in the world are explained away with a simple phrase "the British".
I really wish that I could be blessed with such insight.
Of course the problems cannot have anything to do with religious dogma or modern political difference based upon historical prejudice. It wouldn't be politically correct to suggest that would it?
See above. Have a think, then just insist that the British Empire only brought cricket and railways
Isn't your apportionment of blame as selective as any other?
Can you explain to me the circumstances under which we would be discussing a conflict between India and Pakistan if Britain didn't create the two countries?
I also stated very clearly that people from both countries are responsible for their own actions now and in the past.
Isn't the point that it isn't possible to apportion responsibility using a simplistic view of the situation such as "Bash Britain" or "Bash India" or "Bash Pakistan". There were some conflicts before Clive was even a glimmer in his father's eye. There were colonial conflicts for 250 years either directly or by proxy. There were and will remain conflicts since partition. Partition may not have helped the Kashmiri question but with the circumstances that prevailed, it expedited Britain's exit from the region. If Britain had not exited in the post war world, it would not have received the financial support from the US that it needed to rebuild post WW2. More importantly, it would not have enjoyed the support of the INC and the Pakistani separatists with the consequence of a larger disaster than the many hundreds of thousands who died during the Partition troubles.
What choice did Britain actually have than to exit and effectively Partition the region?
Would it have been better tocstay andcretain whatever control was possible....unlikely that that would have saved lives then or now.
So what is your answer? Lets bash Britain.....? In my opinion, too simple an analysis my friend.
"
...and here we go again. The benevolent colonial power as the victim.
There was no "Kashmiri question" until the Maharajah was forced to choose between joining one of two artificially created countries in an arbitrary location on an arbitrary date.
India was never India and neither was Pakistan until we decided it would be so.
There was surprisingly little religious conflict until it was used as a tool to try to derail the independence movement.
That does not absolve those who live their from responsibility for their own actions both then and now.
Is it really that hard to acknowledge a proportion of the responsibility for creating the situation in India and many other places in the world?
Did you read the thread? You did not understand my analysis at all. You chose to be offended and react accordingly.
I'm not bashing the British. Almost nobody alive today took any part in the decisions that led to this situation. I'm suggesting that we act like grown ups and learn rather than find someone else to blame and pretend we did nothing wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Slight ramble...The traumatic effects of partition still live on. My grandfather refuses to talk about it, as well as the fact that his father decided to convert from Sikhism to Islam.
I feel time is regarded differently in most colonised countries. On my first visit to Pakistan my mother toured me around all the sites where the British soldiers slaughtered the locals. The bloodstains still there in some, from memory. It still lies fresh in their minds, much like the clearances for some Highlanders, and the Irish.
Mountbatten was well loved as he helped 'create' Pakistan. In oppodition to this, in the 70s there was a quiet solidarity with the IRA. Nobody talks about that. A good demonstration of the psychic split in the immigrants eye. Rejected by the "Mother country".
It's complex with so many factors.
There is also a dislike of Arabs as another domineering political/religious force converting the local population back in the day. I can see how Hindu nationalism works but there were numerous pagan belief systems existing too.
India and Pakistan generally loathe each other. It's so hard to travel there unharrassed, or without paying for bribes for your visa. That still happens to other religions, like my canadian zorastrian friend trying to get on her film residency. Visa denied.
Excuse the disjointed thoughts. Sick in bed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"Indian pilot being released and both countries taking the opportunity to step back.
Pragmatism rather than nationalism for a change.
Good."
The spirit of the cricketer still lingers in Imran Khan! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Indians have a better batting attack but the Pakistanis always seem to have a mystery bowler. As long as they aren't throwing the game of course! "
Shhhhh! It already been settled. Third ball of the 23rd over will be a no ball. Both governments have bet the farm on it.
Trebles all round.
War? What war? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
My money was on Easy! You just cost me ten pence! 