Subject:
|
Re: A question of remembrance...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 May 2001 08:16:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
605 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > > Turkey and Israel are "free to take care of it". However, both have a
> > > > history of ignoring human rights and murdering civilians in the process.
> > >
> > > That's the way of blood feuds. Or gang-warfare. Or <your phrase of choice
> > > here>!
> > >
> > > Still, a less polemical tone might be more appropriate for someone in Great
> > > Britian. Britain is hardly a country without fault, historically speaking.
> > > If the sun never set on the British empire, believe me -- it's control was
> > > built upon atrocities with a human cost. Don't get me started...
> >
> > That was in the bad old days... most other countries were doing pretty much
> > the same - or wanted to. But sure, I'm still not proud of it. Anyhow, we
> > have rebranded ourselves as the "UK" :-)
>
> Heh. It may be sobering to point out that the "brand" of
> UK was born in 1800, following the forced Act of Union with
> Ireland. That's when the name becomes valid, and it starts
> a new era of incredible colonial bloodshed.
Indeed. But is was not until more recently untail it came into common usage.
Most of the the world still refers to the UK as Britain, or more annoyingly
England.
>
> But I'm not sure all of that is entirely past--it may only
> seem so because Britain's power has waned so much. But the
> capital benefits gained from those atrocities has remained;
> just walk around the West End of London and gaze up at the
> Georgian, Victorian, and Edwardian buildings and monuments.
I do not doubt what you are saying. However, I have to say that the same
could be said for many other nation’s capitals. Further, I also have to
remind you that most of the developed world relies on the exploitation of
people and resources in the developing world for its wealth today. The UK
woke up to the fact that its sweets may well rely on slave labour just last
week when a ship full of child “slaves” destined for a cocoa plantation made
the news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_1305000/1305547.stm
Scott A
> Speaking of senseless violence, I wonder what the protesters
> have gotten up to today...?
>
> best
>
> LFB
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
| (...) Those have long been a problem. I can agree with respect to "UK" not being the common usage; however, the official usage dates from that period, and in the records it's standard from 1800 even when the records are informal (although the (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
| (...) Heh. It may be sobering to point out that the "brand" of UK was born in 1800, following the forced Act of Union with Ireland. That's when the name becomes valid, and it starts a new era of incredible colonial bloodshed. But I'm not sure all of (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
197 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
