But the British kept the religions apart at a cost of many British lives.Although Afghanistan was always a lost cause.The Brits had a hell of a time there,the Russians couldn't control them and now the Americans are trying.Total lost cause. The one that has always intrigued me is the Falkland Islands,for which many of our soldiers died retaking.Why the Falkland Islands?Was it just used as a navy base?There's nothing there but sheep (?) and some islanders....
Excellent... Now we just need to go and arrest that other colossal twat Paul Golding and lock them up in the same cell!
I can't even see the point in Britain First, even from their perspective. UKIP have become completely mainstream, despite the dodgy backgrounds and opinions of a lot of their members. The EDF cover the the even ****tier brand of that part of the spectrum, so what's the point in this lot?
You look around Europe, and what you see is the so-called "extreme" parties reach a voter % where in order to progress further/beyond, the more extreme stuff and those who want it has to become an ever-decreasing proportion of their make-up.
You are100% right BS9, but you need to put it slightly differently and put things into perspective. When most of the so called atrocities were committed by the Colonists, in the UK we were still putting 10 year old kids up chimneys, women didn't have the vote, there was no heath and safety at work act, no national health service, no minimum wage and people were being hung for all sorts of relatively minor crimes. The problem with historians is that they relate what happened then to our modern day standards. You only have to look at Africa now, the last time a new hospital was built or road was tarmacked in the Eastern DRC was when the Belgian Colonists were there, save a few religious contributions and those financed by mining companies. Sierra Leone is exactly the same, nothing since the British left. Too many African leaders line their own pockets leaving their own people with nothing. There is a major difference between independence and freedom. Independence is often the transfer from one oppressor to another. Freedom relates to human rights. Your example of Ian Smith declaring UDI in Zimbabwe (Southern Rhodesia), the truth of the matter is that when the power hand over came, there were no transitional arrangements. When white farmers left nothing was put in place to replace the weekly wages they paid their workers, which meant irrigation pumps were ripped from the wells and sold as scrap, as were tractors and other agricultural machinery. Everything became short term hand to mouth stuff and production went back centuries overnight. South Africa has suffered but not as badly, Mandela was sensible enough to learn from the mistakes of others so he kept the white farmers there. Zuma is not as sensible and is slowly cocking the country up but there is a ray of light, a centre right political party called the DA (democratic alliance) are taking control of the big cities and doing what should be done, fixing pot holes, funding health , schools etc. with little or no corruption. Hopefully they will be in government within the next few years and South Africa will be great again. Personally, I think if the colonists had remained they would have had to apply modern western standards, just as mining companies have to do now if they are listed in New York, London or Toronto. Most of the self governed African countries would be in a far better situation without independence as tribal rivalries still cause many issues. Law and order is often non-existent or can be bought. One notable exception is Rwanda. Paul Kagame is doing a fantastic job following the genicide but still gets slagged off by the mindless NGO's who stick their noses in where they are not wanted. However, unfortunately, countries like Rwanda and leaders like Paul Kagame are few and far between.
It's interesting to hear from someone that actually spends some time in Africa on a regular basis. I'll freely admit that I'm not well informed enough about the situation to sensibly contribute. The Africans that I know (mainly Ghanaian and Nigerian) seem to echo a lot of what you've said, though. How to sort Africa out? Should be pretty easy to do on a football forum. I give it two pages and we'll be done.
It's ironic that you highlight Kagame, a guy who is very quick to focus anger on the hypocrisy of former colonial nations who criticise him. He is still a dictator responsible for human rights abuses though, which is why he does face criticism. Africa is a big place, the countries you single out have been ravaged by tribal war so it's not unexpected that they're a little behind our western standards. Corruption exists in Africa but it's beginning to become a stereotyped commentary, especially when you think about what happens on the world scale. I would consider corporate tax avoidance in this country and the role of big business in politics globally as a form of corruption, just that such labels are the preserve of less developed (read populated by black or brown people) countries. And no matter what context you wish to bring to it, historical or otherwise, it's been a VERY long time since murder was considered okay... you know, par for the course when bringing these savages to heel. Thankfully we're losing these old school colonial attitudes and it's essential we do look at our past actions and measure them by more modern / progressive standards... To not do so would mean we'd learn nothing.
I don't think that corruption is reserved for non-white countries, Shark. I'd say that it's become pretty widespread and most people that I know would probably agree. Countries like Russia or Italy are pretty well known for it in general, though.
Yeah of course you're right. I work with a bloke from Italy who says he came here because he was fed up with the sketchy stuff back home. It's just that an all encompassing narrative exists in relation to Africa, a kind of 'it's all corrupt over there init' perception which can stop debate. This is an entire continent we're talking about and after all.
Interesting stuff.But why the Falkland Islands.Is it required as a base and what did the Argentinians want it for? Is there something on those islands that we don't know anything about.......?
As far as i'm aware the Falklands has had French, British, Spanish, and Argentine settlements in the past... It's a rock, mainly used for whaling fleet harbour in the past. An outpost of the former British Empire perhaps? We surely have zero credible claim to the islands given their proximity to the UK and Argentina have always claimed them since we kicked them out in the 1800's. They think that Spain 'gave' them the Falklands thus it's been in dispute ever since. Falklanders apparently govern themselves (like the Isle of Man?) but the UK takes care of defence and foreign affairs. The war in 82 was declared by Thatcher at a time when her popularity was low. Nothing like a good (winnable) war to boost the polls i suppose. The Argentines did occupy however so i suppose conflict was likely. I met a bloke once who fought over there he said the population was so inbred it gave them the creeps. If Corbyn gets in as PM he'll hand them over pretty quick.
I don't doubt that the initial consequences were generally positive but that doesn't mean they didn't create the aftermath. One issue when I've been in Africa seems to be the arbitrary lines on the ground drawn by the colonists to create 'countries'. This creates problems all over the world including Europe (Ireland, the Balkans).
European powers have been very good at drawing geographic boundaries that fail to respect formal/informal historical/tribal boundary lines known and respected by the indigenous peoples.
So when caught in an outright lie during PMQs about how many houses the Tories had actually built, Theresa May's response was to give this ****bucket a ****load of free publicity...
