RE: Canada to U.S.: Mind your own business, don’t tell us how to run our military; calls Bush a moro

With 87% of Canadian exports ending up in the U.S., it remains to be seen if the continued opposition of American foreign policy by Canada will result in any economic voes. Canadian exports jumped 125% after the introduction of NAFTA, and with the Canadian economy becoming increasingly reliant on the U.S. economy, I am not certain if this is the most appropriate way to voice their opinion at this time.

Sam.

Let’s focus on the issue at hand

Let’s focus on the issue here. People who don’t know about the caste system in India, shouldn’t voice their opinion on something they have no clue about. This thread also has nothing to do with human rights.

The claim that from the 16th century to the 20th century the colonists didn’t have much of an idea about ‘human rights’ is nonsense. What matters is more european nations should take note of Britain’s gesture and be accountable for their savagery.

Sam.

RE: Some thoughts

>Sorry Sam, with all do respect, but you`re just BS here.
>England not as cruel as the Spanish conquistadores. Mmm,
>again, who were the ones who invented concentration camps?
>The Germans, I guess not. I don`t think it really matters
>who were the cruelest. And Britain was a powerful nation,
>but at what cost? How many wars with Spain, France, Austria,
>the United Provinces (at least 3)?? Britain was not so
>cruel, at the times of the first colonisation, because the
>country was still a mess. Only Elizabeth I could organise
>the country a bit, but while Spain was discovering the
>world, England was going through multiple civil wars.

Benjamin,
Read my second post, I have stated clearly as to who was responsible for concentration camps. When was I defending England? I am not here to place Britain on a pedestal and chastigate the other European nations. I am talking facts here. Benjamin, please don’t lecture to me about what the Spanish, Portugese et al did in our nations. You stick to european history and I will stick to mine. Don’t try to rewrite history. I think I am in a better position to tell you who was responsible for the crimes against humanity conducted in my part of the world.

>Human rights as they exist today are actually a product of
>Jewish-Christian belief. In theory, Christianity was the
>first religion on the European continent who preached
>tollerance, but we all know what happened during the
>Crusades. Though I have the greatest respect for Asian
>phylosophy, Human rights as they exist today are really a
>western invention. But long before Europe was getting
>civilised, Indian tribes had already civilisations which
>preached tollerance.

Human rights are a Jewish-Christian belief? Are you suffering from amnesia? I come from a nation that has a recorded history of 2500 years and we have had human rights ever since we have practiced non-violant forms of religion like Hinduism and Buddhism. Strengthening your position in an argument by trying to re-write history will get you nowhere. I invite you to visit my part of the world where I can show evidence and historical facts which shows you what nations were responsible for the greatest amount of crimes against humanity.

Sam.

RE: Who Cares?

>The British Empire ended in 1945 when we no longer had the
>money to keep it. Yes okay there we raped and pillaged other
>countries. We masscared people and took there land. But so
>what.

That’s not true. The British empire in South Asia ended when the Indians led by Mahatma Gandhi requested them to “get out” in a very amicable way. :7 The Indians then proceeded to let the Portugese know they are not wanted in Goa and to pack up and leave. Knowing the arrogance of the Portugese, they refused to do so and India responded with vengeance and Portugal tucked tail and ran.

>I was born in 1975. The empire died long ago. For some
>reason the commonwealth is still around although ive never
>figured out what it does. I see it this way. Those countries
>that have progressed since they became independent generally
>dont blame us for there problems. Those countries that have
>regressed (mainly in africa) blame us for every single one
>of there problems. Stop feeling sorry for yourselves and get
>on with your life.

No one is feeling sorry for themselves. Don’t fabricate and argument that’s not present. This thread focuses on accountability and some europeans such as Arthur, mongu and dcfly are quick to admit that ‘facts are facts’ and some issues are not defensible. These gentleman are also intelligent enough to realize that I am not pressing them to take the blame for what their ancestors did and nor am I requesting reparations. I have nothing against euopeans, nor do I have anything against the Portugese, Dutch and the English. I am merely trying to highlight that terrible things were done during the times of the colonials and it is about time the europeans accepted and took responsibility for their past actions just as the British have done.

Sam.

RE: Some thoughts

Excellent replies Arthur. I couldn’t have said it any better.

Sam.

RE: Some thoughts

> I am affraid this topic has turned into something rude,
>offensive and agresive, in which the moderator should have
>something to say about. I am not going to presonalize
>because other readers deserve respect. So let´s go back to
>the point.

This is not the colonial times. I have a right to voice my grievences at my convenience just like it gives you the right to make mockery of the suffering we underwent at the hands of your ancestors. How would the euopeans feel if I trivialized WW I & WW II? Is that justifiable? How would the africans domiciled in N & S America and the Carribean feel if I trivialized the slavery issue? The point is your people didn’t suffer due to colonialism, WE did. At least give me the benefit of the doubt and actually think that I must be having a very good reason to highlight our plight. Don’t tell me to look at the positives of colonialism. That’s akin to telling the Jews to see the positive side of the Holocaust or informing the decendents of slaves to look at the positive side of slavery. There was nothing positive about colonization, and don’t you dare tell me how I should feel about it.

>We have to admit that the historical development
>of the countries is based on invasions of countries,
>colonization, opresion and so on. No place in the world can
>be considered free of this. Spain for instance has suffered
>continous invasions, bloody represions, manslaughters…and
>so on.

You would have made a great legislator during the times of your ancestral lootings. Spain has suffered? Every country has suffered; but don’t you see the irony in that? Can you compare the level of suffering? Can all sufferings be measured with the same yard-stick? Were thousands of dollars worth of gold carted from Spain during your so-called “suffering?” Did the nation in question rape your nation, starve your people, destroy the economy, devastate the environment and re-invest only 1% of their profits in Spain? Its fine to talk about your nations’ past grievences, but make sure you don’t undermine the validity of nations that have legitmately suffered under the sword of colonialism. Trvilizing a situation as you have done and comparing the pseudo “suffering” Spain has undergone to the suffering experienced by the colonies from the conquistadors is grossly unfair and in poor taste.

>Powerful countries submit the weak ones for their
>interests. The SPanish submitted the Aztecas for instance,
>which previously had manslaughters his neighbours and
>sometimes with a higher degree of cruelty. But all these
>invasions, colonizations and so on, have shaped the
>countries identities, by getting different aportations of
>different cultures.

Absolutely. No argument there. But, again you have trivialized the situation. Every nation/race/tribe have their own issues, whether its for territorial gain or to settle a long standing feud, people will be at each others throats. But, as I have said in my earlier post, is it fair to compare the Spanish who came and looted, pillaged, murdered, raped and destituted an entire group of people to the wars between the different Aztec tribes? From the Aztecs, to the Bushmen of the Kalahari to the Inuits of Greenland, they all have waged war against each other. But, the question remains. How much of their lives were altered due to it?

>So we can´t decide what part our own
>indetity comes from own local cuture or is given. As we
>don´t have any magic bowl to indicate us how our countries
>would be without any invasive of colonizating process or if
>we would be worst of better, we have to accept that we can´t
>eliminate colonization from human existence, and try to find
>what positives have given to us.

Positives? Let’s see. Well, we have Dutch tourists coming to find the a little bit of their architecture, then we have the Portugese tourists paying homage to the catholic churches they built and then we have the British tourists who come and wonder at our archeological accomplishments and wonder why they never shipped them to England pre-1948.

>I am talking in a general
>sense not refering to the British or the Spanish….But It´s
>quite naive pretending to say…”well we were the pure
>Spanish before this or that country came”. I am sure that in
>Sri Lanka, there were other people coming from other parts
>and submiting the locals. Why the British and Spanish
>colonization processes were the most cruel ones…..again
>question of scale.

Why do yoy keep bringing Britain into the fold of cruel rule? I think I told you before that Britain was not cruel to the same level of the Spanish and Portugese. Why you need to equate England with the conquistadors of Spain astounds me. The fact is cruel rule had nothing to do with how powerful a nation was, that is a lame and ignorant excuse by you. At the height of colonial times, Britain was the most powerful nation, no other nation could even hold a candle to their feats. Were they cruel? Yes. As cruel at the Portugese and the Spanish? Absolutely not. A nation’s actions has a lot to do with the psyche and character of the people. Some colonists like the Portugese and the Spanish were barbarians, hell bent on destroying and changing the entire colony. The British and the Dutch on the other hand were much more easy going and more toward enhancing their coffers through economic means and were not interested in destroying the entire culture.

>If you are powerful you can kill many, if
>your weak you can kill less or in a lower scale. Spanish was
>even more cruel, because it was previous in time, in which
>human rights concepts were even more inexistent. I AM NOT
>JUSTIFYING IT, but it´s how it worked. I would find a bit
>childish asking for responsabilities to the italians for the
>Romans having invading muy country…TODAY.

Human rights may have been a “new” concept for you Spaniards, but not for us Asians. Don’t excuse your self from your sordid and embarassing past by blaming it on not knowing human rights. It comes down to what kind of people you were. Let’s not forget that all your conquests and looting was done with the auspices of the catholic church. Childish for asking for responsibilities? Why did the whole europe hold Hitler accountable for his actions? Why is Stalin being held responsible for his actions? Why are they holding these people accountable EVEN today? Double standards? Think about it.

>Of course many
>current problems are due to colonization, it´s obvious. But
>history is history, and it´s only to learn from it. And once
>again, bringing it back to the current world affairs, is an
>easy excuse to blame others for many problems in which we
>are also responsible for.

Let me tell state this for the thousandth time. I am not asking for anything. Get it? Does accountability ring a bell? Look it up in the dictionary. I had finished off with this topic after my very first news report in which Mr.Straw too responsibility for Britan’s actions. Then you procceded to “cook” up some nonsense about how we should be grateful for Tea and Chocolate. Then you proceeded to bring about trivial reasons which made a mockery of our suffering by equating it to the “suffering” of Spain.

>Before leaving this topic and for
>anyone interested in my level of education, I have two
>university degrees, a diploma, a master, I speak five
>languages and colaborate in different publications in my
>country, appart from other things. Not really dramatic, but
>of course I don´t consider myself uneducated. At least, I am
>able to respect others. Bye.

Sadly, your education does not show. You are probably an embarassment to the institutions you studied at.

Sam.

RE: FINALLY!! Britain admits to their sordid colonial past!!!

>Sam
>I’ve read your posts and Keltics responses, he has one or
>two valid points.
>1. Why should we feel guilty for the actions of our
>forebears?
>2. Why should you still be claiming your suffering?

Dave,
Please read what I wrote very carefully. I never wanted an apology and I never wanted to pass the blame of your ancestors on you and nor did I ask for reparations. I asked for accountability which was given very elequently by Mr.Jack Straw.

>What are you after ? an personal apology from Downing
>street?
>You cant change the past, it’s done , finished , over, it’s
>time to move on.
>Does Keltic feel guilty because his ancestors wiped out a
>whole civilisation in the Incas, and plundered the best part
>of South America for gold and other valuables? No! I’m sure
>he doesnt,

I agreed with what Downing Street had to say and I applaud Mr.Straw’s courage to take responsibility on the past actions of Great Britain. I did not take it beyond that except when keltic started on a tangent that was full of fallacies and ignorant remarks. That’s when I started on my crusade. 🙂

>The British Colonialists were sordid, cruel and opressive,
>then so were the Romans and the Spanish Inquisition and Nazi
>Germany and the Byzantuim and the Ottoman Empires, and now
>unfortunately , Osama Bin Laden is filing his claim to
>infamy, life goes on .

Apparently, keltic does not think so. He is under the impression that the Tea estates in Sri Lanka were a boon to the Sri Lankan economy and we should be thankful to the colonizers for it. Tsk, tsk, as they too much knowledge is a negative thing.

Sam.

RE: FINALLY!! Britain admits to their sordid colonial past!!!

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 17-11-02 AT 05:29 AM (GMT)]>Interesting final point Sam.
>
>The ancient Ethiopian culture was the one part of Africa
>where development in agriculture was not held back because
>of the Tsetse fly. As a result, the population were able to
>grow surplus food and survive disasters, grow strong and
>trade with other continents – such as India and China, whose
>artifacts can still be seen in the ruins of cities in the
>south of Ethiopia. Like for like, their culture was ahead of
>European culture at that point in time. They had impressive
>architecture, works of literature and international trade.
>
>The idea that blacks could develop a world class
>civilisation, but only didn’t do it because of Tsetse (and a
>few other issues) would be almost heresy in the days of
>Empire. Yet, it seems to be true.

This kind of thing was very prevalant in Europe, not only did they scorn on Africa, they did the same to Asia. Sadly, this kind of ignorant thinking is still going strong in some societies today.

>You certainly have to consider the fact that Europeans grew
>strong, partly as a result of their benign climate and
>surroundings.
>
>Anyway, your point about the Spanish/Portuguese empires. The
>only colony I have much knowlwedge about is Mozambique.
>There, the Portuguese were recongised as about the most
>liberated and friendly colonials in Africa, encouraging
>mixing between African and Portuguese. I’m not defending
>Empire, just saying that from what I know of the Portuguese
>they were not much worse than anyone else. Spain and
>Portugal both played a role in the destruction of native
>cultures in latin America I suppose.

Actually, I have a very different view. My nation was colonized by the Portugese and so were some of my Asian brethren. They were very different to the Dutch and the British(Purely from a Sri Lankan perspective). The Dutch and the British were the best colonizers (Talk about an oxy-moron!!), in the sense that they were more interested in trade than converting us and changing our names. The Portugese catholics on the other hand did the most amount of damage to us in the mental sense. Buddhism, which had existed for 2500 years became and underground movement and was nearly wiped out. They completely forbade the natives to have any Buddhist celebrations or pay homage to the Buddha even though 90% of the population was Buddhist. Lot’s of people lost their homes as a result and many were persecuted endlessly. Out of all 3 colonial powers we have the least respect for the Portugese.

>Finally, the US were regarded as oppressors during their
>occupation of the Philippines. Which just goes to show that
>the “usual suspects” of Britain and anyone else were not
>always the only bad guys in town.

I never absolved the U.S. of opressive crimes. However, this thread has nothing to do with the U.S. hence the very deliberate ommission. In the case of Philippines I beg to disagree. Phillipines being another Asian nation and a nation that I have many friends from, suffered endlessly from the Spanish. As of today, The Philippines is the only catholic nation in Asia bar East Timor(That’s a another story). The native Philipino much rather preferred the rule of the Americans to the Spanish. There is an inherent difference in colonists that occupy other nations for economic gains as opposed to trying to change the whole psyche of a colony. Spain was such a nation.

>PS – in true British fashion (we don’t write the important
>things down, like the constitution) the Empire still exists,
>because it was never officially dissolved. That’s why in
>countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada the head of
>state is still the Queen, even if it is effectively a purely
>ceremonial position. Does this apply to other countries,
>does anyone know? I thought it might apply to India, because
>they have a prime minister which implies either a President
>or a monarch sitting on top.

Britain still has a figurehead rule in ‘White’ nations. I don’t find much of a difference between Australia, England and Canada. Obviously due to the fact that most ancestors from those nations had their recent origins in England. The empire “may” exist for those nations, but believe me the empire does not exist for us. There is even talk of us Asian nations getting out of the commonwealth. The present Indian political system has its origins in England, but the Queen is not even a fgurehead there. They have a President that does not have executive powers. Don’t even mention that to a Asian, much less an Indian, that kind of talk is akin to desecrating a place of worship. We have nothing to do with the Queen and we don’t want anything do with her.

Sam.