Britain’s ex-colonies: lands of hate

Australia and New Zealand seem pretty harmonious to me.

Canada 🇨🇦 and the United States 🇺🇸

r2 Was true until a couple of months ago. Just goes to show how fragile these things are.

How about the ones that they still have--Gibraltar, the Falklands, etc.?

Just former British colonies lol

[Quote] Australia and New Zealand seem pretty harmonious to me.

Australians and New Zealanders do hate their aboriginal populations

Pakistan and India - religious issue - there has been Hindu/Muslim conflict for hundreds of years - the British didn't introduce that.

Ireland and Northern Ireland - again, religious issue, the Protestants discriminated against Catholics (legally) for hundreds of years

Palestine and Israel - UK didn't have a long possession of this land, only 30 years as part of WW1 treaties, when Ottoman Empire was dissolved. But this is again, religious issue.

Heck, even Northern and Southern US. - UK had nothing do with this - it was the South's desire for slavery and to keep inhumane treatment of black people. Slavery was abolished in UK territories over 25 years before the US civil war.

Colonialism was started by the Portugese and Spanish - who also were involved in the slave trade a long time before UK or France ever got involved with it. Yes, colonialism did harm to countries - but it was widespread - Spain, Portugal, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Italy - they all were colonial powers as well.

Compared to the absolute fucking mess that Spain made of its New World colonies, the former British colonies look pretty damn good.

Yes Prime Minister dealt with this

R8 - agreed - nobody ever brings up Spanish colonialism though. It's all ENGLAND BAD! Belgium fucked up their colonies and Germany created the first concentration camps in their colonies, way before WW2.

Nobody wants to talk about the Muslim slave trade that existed in Africa long before Europeans got involved. It was already there - Europeans didn't create it and they didn't search for slaves. They were already on offer.

People pick out items in history and want to condemn certain countries or groups - when it was a much broader and large-scale issue in many places in the world.

Yes, Prime Minister

You forgot Ceylon/Sri Lanka OP. Never forget the Tamil Tigers. England liked to give preference to the second largest ethnic and/or religious group in their colonies. Then when they left, the preferred minority and the majority had a built in conflict. In India, Muslims were preferenced over the majority Hindu group. In Ceylon the minority Hindu population was preferenced over the majority Buddhist.

Anyway discussion of colonialism without discussing France and how French colonialism gave rise to modern anti-colonialist hermeneutics is sadly lacking imho.

The British most certainly exacerbated tensions in South Asia and Palestine. African slavery was very different from slavery in the New World. "The English" didn't introduce that to the New World-- the Spanish and Portuguese did. The English legal system afforded no gray area to the status of slaves, compared to the Spanish, Portuguese and African instances.

"Nobody" in North America talks about the Spanish because North America is built upon English roots and English law, and national histories tend to focus on matters important to their own foundations.

Here's just one quote from the British about those slovenly Irish,

Rotten potatoes and sea-weed, or even grass, properly mixed, afforded a very wholesome and nutritious food. All knew that Irishmen could live upon anything and there was plenty grass in the field though the potato crop should fail. (The Duke Of Cambridge, January 1846)

The British took all the food, grains, meat and dairy back to England where the godly people were, and just left them to eat the fucking grass and potatoes, then the potatoes became blighted, one of the English shitheads said the land will carry as much as it can and the rest will die, everything bad in the world goes back to the hateful British. Check out a few more writings of the Great Evil devils.

r13 the entire scope of slavery and colonialism isn't discussed by Americans. Nobody talks about the Spanish, Portuguese or the Ottomans. It should be discussed as part of the whole story.

They're also responsible for all the homophobia in their former African and Caribbean colonies.

Well they haven't had those colonies in generations. What's the excuse for modern homophobia in those countries? Britain itself is one of the most progressive countries in the world for LGBT rights.

They have nothing on the way France raped Haiti and left it to die and broke.

Yes they did r19, the filthy Brits did it ALL over the world to all the black and browns, they thought of them as trash and savages, they're paying for it now, deservedly, right down the shitter! Have fun!

[Quote] Pakistan and India - religious issue - there has been Hindu/Muslim conflict for hundreds of years - the British didn't introduce that.

No, the Brits didn’t start it but really milked it until it exploded. The conflict got much worse when the British came

It might have something to do with how the British divided the land when they left.

For India and Pakistan, a British clerk, who hadn’t even ever gone to India, drew the dividing line. He was in England when he did it.

[Quote] nobody ever brings up Spanish colonialism though. It's all ENGLAND BAD! Belgium fucked up their colonies and Germany created the first concentration camps in their colonies, way before WW2.

Sure all colonies were fucked by their ruling countries but this question is specifically about how modern countries have remained in conflict because of Britain colonial presence.

You can’t start your own thread about the Spanish

[quote] You can’t start your own thread about the Spanish

He can’t?

[quote]they're paying for it now, deservedly, right down the shitter! Have fun!

How?

yeah, it sucks what colonialism did to a lot of places, but at some point, fuck it. Stop having shitty, stupid, ridiculous, nonsense, fucked up, no good, bullshit government because of what happened to your region 100 years ago. Stop fucking around and make a country that doesn't suck ass all day, every day.

TIA.

Fucked Hong Kong and refused people their right to vote on their own future

[Quote] Stop having shitty, stupid, ridiculous, nonsense, fucked up, no good, bullshit government because of what happened to your region 100 years ago.

And yet, here we are in the US with a fucked up government …

that's true, r27 but it hasn't been decades of fucked up and useless. We do need to toss these fuckers out on their ass though, as Africa needs to toss out pretty much every fucker in their governments.

R21 - don't act like it was the Brits who just randomly divided the nation. The Brits needed to get out - and splitting the nation is what was wanted, primarily by the minority Muslims.

"The partition of British India into India and Pakistan in 1947 was primarily driven by the desire of the Muslim League, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, to create a separate Muslim-majority state, Pakistan, fearing for the rights of Muslims within a Hindu-majority India. This demand was rooted in the two-nation theory, which argued that Muslims and Hindus were distinct and irreconcilable communities. The British, facing pressure from both the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League, and grappling with post-war economic challenges, ultimately agreed to partition the subcontinent to ensure a peaceful transition of power."

As far as a planned 'divide and conquer' - a lot of that is a post-facto look-back on policies rather than a devious plan. The Brits tried to respect religious and tribal/cultural groups, but that led to more division. Those groups were already there - the Brits didn't create them. And who knows as modern society and industry was developed in the 19th century if those conflicts would have increased anyway.

I'm not trying to let UK off the hook - obviously it sucked a lot of resources and money out of India for over 100 years. That's what most colonies do - as it is a business enterprise. Always has been.

But at the same time, there's the reflexive need to blame every single issue from today on colonialism, which is lazy and absolves the current political parties from any blame. X isn't working because of colonialism in the 19th century doesn't cut it anymore.

It has become this quick 'blame somebody else for all of our problems' instead of looking internally.

[quote] but it hasn't been decades of fucked up and useless.

Give it time.

I am no fan of the British Empire, but OP’s idea isn’t just a bad take, it’s the worst take ever.

For instance the crown had nothing to do with the north/south issues in the colonies which became the USA.

The only one that semi makes sense is Israel, but not “Israel Palestine” as OP put it. It was more “Israel vs the other Arab nations.” Palestine wasn’t a power to be balanced. Palestinians Arabs were people who had lived in other peoples empires for centuries, but with all the talk about “self determination” and “independence” after the two world wars, wanted to have their own separate nation. They weren’t a “power” to set Israel against.

However the British wanted a pro-western nation in the Middle East after they fucked off — hence the Balfour Declaration. (Bonus points — the British were supposed to be caretakers in the Middle East and they had no right to “give away” these territories.)

R31 - the onus of maintaining and supporting the former Ottoman Empire fell on the victors of WW1 at considerable expense and after WW2, they didn't have the funds to keep doing it.

You can't blame Britain for being involved and then not being involved at the same time. The Palestinians rejected a two state solution that would have given them 80% of the land. Then when Israel declared itself a country, they attacked Israel along with several other Arab countries providing assistance.

Jews made up 1/3 of the population and had legally bought a lot of the better agricultural land from Arabs before WW2. The Ottomans allowed it - but nobody blames them?

Palestine was NOT A COUNTRY under Ottoman Rule, it was part of Ottoman Syria. The Brits didn't 'give away' anything.

R32 You can’t say that about north and south because a large part of southern territory was originally colonized by the French or Spanish. Hell even Manhattan was conquered by the Dutch. Or were they considered British back then.

Pakistan/India

R33 - huh?

My Indian friend says the worst thing the Brits did was bring victorian shame values to India. The Brits set up the world trade system including its financial aspect. The city of London was the world's banker for a time till they spent so much on the war they had to end the keys to the US for a bailout. Despite this the normal Brit was still a peasant worker who didn't get much but a lifetime of debt slavery. Capitalism has wrecked the world but it may be better than the fucked up one the Church had in mind of perpetual Feudalism and Crusades to tap off the young upstarts and get them killed.

R35 I don’t know why I placed your comment in. My response was purely intended for the OP.

There we go, rationalizing the shit the Brits did, perhaps they could have stayed home but instead they needed to rape the world, did we forget that slave cotton from America fueled the industrial revolution and furthered their tentacles around the rest of the globe? They are paying for it now, they're at the bottom of the developed countries and shooting downward even further.

Oh good R38 is here - please tell us how the Brits are responsible for the items listed by OP.

We wait breathlessly for your learned and informed response.

Enoch Powell was 100% correct. The worst hasn't even begun yet, even though thousands of English girls have been raped and many murders and terror attacks have taken place. You heard it here first, there is going to be a Rwanda-like genocide of Europeans within 10 years.

r40 Europeans will fight back, they always do.

R33

• The Dutch founded New Amsterdam on the southern tip of Manhattan Island in 1625 as a trading post for the Dutch West India Company . • In 1664, the British seized New Amsterdam without much resistance and renamed it New York.

• The Dutch briefly recaptured it in 1673 and renamed it New Orange, but returned it to the British in 1674 as part of the Treaty of Westminster, which ended the Third Anglo-Dutch War.

• In the same Treaty of Westminster (1674), the Dutch retained control over Suriname, which they had conquered from the British in 1667.

• Essentially, the Dutch chose to keep Suriname in the treaty negotiations, while ceding New Netherland (including Manhattan) to the British.

OP, are you a MORON?

Israel and Palestine were never British colonies. EVER.

The British Mandate for Palestine lasted from 1920 to 1948. 28 years.

They are all shitholes well over a century later and they all still blame the White man. Their cultures are completely dysfunctional and inbreeding has ensured low IQs. Facts.

R44 Doesn’t India have one of the highest IQs on planet Earth. You might want to do some studying, klan granny.

^^^and 50% of the population shit on the streets as we speak. Is that 500 million people shiting on streets everyday. They seem not figure out toilets and sewers like Europeans did 200 years ago. Meanwhile, the smart ones flock to the West.

Such is the brain rot ignorance of the Queers for Palestine crowd. Just shart out any TikTok "history lesson" and choose your position in lameass binary outrage matches.

R45 - they all cheat on tests anyways, so how could anyone know?

[quote]New Zealanders do hate their aboriginal populations

Not true. First off Maori are not aboriginals and secondly Maori culture is pretty embraced here by the majority. Maori is an official language of NZ and is taught in most primary schools and offered in secondary schools and tertiary education.

[Quote] As far as a planned 'divide and conquer' - a lot of that is a post-facto look-back on policies rather than a devious plan.

Nope. The British purposely stoked Hindu/Muslim conflict and played both sides, secretly pushing the Muslims to demand a separate country

India and Pakistan are at it again as we speak.