C O M M U N I T Y   F O R U M
 




















BRITANNIA COMMUNITY FORUM
Re: Th English are a cruel race
Post Follow Up
Posted by: Nuno dos Santos on September 8, 1999
In Reply to: Re: Th English are a cruel race
Posted by Carlos on October 22, 1998
Subject: Re: Th English are a cruel race
> You obviously know very little about history.
> Only a stupid person would post a message like yours without bothering to investigate.
> English were pioneers in the abolition of slavery in Africa and they had sometimes to fight local chieftains to stop it, while Spaniards and Portuguese continued merrily that trade after it was stopped in England.
> And what about the destruction of the Incas ,Aztecs, or Amazonian tribes by Spaniards and Portuguese? The English brought civilisation to most of the lands that became part of the Empire, while the others were SOLELY robbing, plundering and pillaging without bringing any improvements.The proof is that many former colonies of the British Empire are now prosperous nations.
> Tell me, if you can, just ONE former Spanish,Portuguese,Italian or French colony that's not THIRD WORLD nowadays.
> As of me, I firmly believe the Italians are the cruelest nation in the world!
> PS: Piss off!
You obviously know more about history than the ...person that started this discussion, but even so there are things you say that I cannot agree. First of all I am portuguese so what I say may not be completly objective. About slavery: the british where the first to abolish slavery on their lands (1837) and this after they had managed to include the banishment of the slave trade on the teatry of Viena that put an end to revolutionary and napoleonic wars in Europe (1815). Lets not beat around the bush. Slavery is a mather of economics and the british did not became abolitionists because of any political correctness. They started the industrial revolution and had machines to do the work of men (free or slave), they had, afther Trafalgar (1815) indisputed control of the seas and could actualy enforce the proibition of slave trade. And because they had the machines they could aford to let go of their slaves and campaign for everybody else to do the same and buy their machinery to replace slave labour. Portugal and Spain did not abolished slavery ENTERILY until the sixties but, truth be said, since the early twenties neither had that much slaves because of the loss of their american possessions, and we all know who helped these new markets became independent and ready to buy british industrial goods, dont we?
As for your claim that british brougt civilization and everybody else just robbed, dont you think that is a little imature? This is History, not an american flik with the good guys and the bad guys. History is not that simple, and the folowing text that I have already used on other answers on this subject, will at least make you think about the well known colonial truths that everybody remembers and mentiones without justifying whit facts.
"The spaniards did conquered the native american empires, but what did you expect? The reconquista left them a warmachine about to be dismantled the very year Colombus reached the New World. There was no premeditated genocide:disease rather than war made most victims and you cant blame the europeans for biological warfare (at least without blaming the natives of doing the same with sifilis.) And even the conquest was more the work of greedy private adventurers than the state´s. Let´s not forget that the two first vice-roys apointed by the spanish crown were murdered by the adventurers they were sent to control. Let´s not forget also that if you can point out an "hispanic" on a street in California today it is not because of any hispanic features, but because of native central-american features. And 40% of the population of today´s Peru still speaks quichua, the language of the quichuas, better known as incas. Can you find an apache or cheyene that easily in the mid-west?
As for Portugal, the reconquista finished 250 years before Columbus voyage and in between (1383-85) a merchant backed revolution replaced the dinasty and the old nobility. This left a bastard dinasty looking for prestige, an aristocracy of second sons looking for honor and pillage, and some very optimistic merchants looking for adventure. The portuguese discoveries were a national adventure, but this nation had only between 0.25 to 1.0 million souls. This meant that terror tactics on the East, slavery on the West active miscegination and nothing close to genocide were necessary. Then came the decolonising/independence/separation: The US got their independence afther fighting a war with Britain when she was at her peak (and would be again). The latin american countries won their independence from their motherlands at a time wen they were weakened by french ocupation and civil unrest, and they had the help of free markets seeking britain. They became independent too soon and fell on the hands of britain and most particularly of the US and to this day Spanish and portuguese speaking americas have been the "backgarden" of the only colonial empire that practiced long term premeditated genocide of native populations." Funny how no one remembers that and go right to the slavedriver iberians.
But you are right when you mention the whealt of former british territories, to which I´ll add the SUPERB work the british did afther WW2, pulling out of the colonial empire. I am not including the "dominions" here, they were already ready, and they represent for me the ultimate objective of empire building: create new broder states/nations. Portugal did a LOWSY (to put it mildly)decolonization during the seventies for political reasons: 48 years fascist dictatorship folowed by brief comunist oriented politics that dumped the colonies like they were the plage. But dont you think it is unfair to blame the former colonial rule for all the poverty? Doesn´t the neocolonialism of the great powers and multinational companies have nothing to do with that? And let us not forget the british had their empire but that doesnt mean they had all their investment there. The unfavorable Methwen teatry of 1703 doomed the portuguese borning industry on favour of british manufactured good. Could the portuguese, or other powers have invested better in their colonies had not been for british overwelming supremacy? And to what an extent did this influenced the wealth of british dominions? Thigs are never simple.
PS: the italians? how come?

FOLLOW UPS

Back to Main Forum



   Copyright ©1996, 1997, 1998 Britannia Internet Magazine. Design by Unica Multimedia.
Corporate Hospitality Concert Tickets London Theatre Tickets