PDA

View Full Version : It's good to have an Empire



MickeyTong
12-06-2009, 15:48
"For the past 300 years, the revolutions and reforms experienced by almost all other developed countries have been averted in Britain by foreign remittances."

For 300 years Britain has outsourced mayhem. Finally it's coming home | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/08/british-empire-colonies-banks-reform)

Jack17
12-06-2009, 20:00
Wow, a mea culpa for no less than 300 years of sins! I have to ask, were Indian farmers paid for their wheat, or just robbed?

What Mr. Monbiot doesn't consider is the substantial benefit to all countries colonized by GB of a legacy of British administration and law. Would India be the world's largest democracy with a booming economy today absent the Raj?

GB was not the only 18 & 19th century colonial power; let's compare South to North America.

As an aside, I think it was Russia's great misfortune that Napoleon didn't defeat and replace Alexander I; but that's a topic for another thread.

I'm not sure I see the connection between a decrease in British wealth and an increase in political corruption. Mr. Mobiot alleges that for 300 years the British Monarchy and Parliament were as pure as the freshly driven snow. While my knowledge of British history is inadequate to argue the point; nevertheless, I doubt it.

In any event, if there remain any sins from British colonialism, I think they are more than expiated by the take over of the British Isles today by citizens of the Commenwealth. Ironically, Britain is now being colonized by its former colonials.

Qdos
12-06-2009, 20:34
While my knowledge of British history is inadequate to argue the point; nevertheless, I doubt it.

Quite. Perfectly phrased. I have nothing to add... :devilish:

Russian Lad
12-06-2009, 21:42
Wow, a mea culpa for no less than 300 years of sins! I have to ask, were Indian farmers paid for their wheat, or just robbed?

What Mr. Monbiot doesn't consider is the substantial benefit to all countries colonized by GB of a legacy of British administration and law. Would India be the world's largest democracy with a booming economy today absent the Raj?

With all due respect, Jack, you wrote absolute rubbish. It is like gang-raping a virgin 12 y.o. girl and claiming afterwards that she gained a lot of sex experience and became wise in life - good for the b@tch. You may also claim that the blacks taken to the US as slaves procured a happy ticket for their descendants - twisted logic.
What was that story about Napoleon?

MickeyTong
12-06-2009, 21:55
Wow, a mea culpa for no less than 300 years of sins! I have to ask, were Indian farmers paid for their wheat, or just robbed?

Perhaps they weren't allowed to sell to anyone else...

I'm not sure I see the connection between a decrease in British wealth and an increase in political corruption. Mr. Mobiot alleges that for 300 years the British Monarchy and Parliament were as pure as the freshly driven snow. While my knowledge of British history is inadequate to argue the point; nevertheless, I doubt it.

Monbiot writes: "The history of governments in all countries is the history of scandal, as those who rise to the top are generally the most ambitious, ruthless and unscrupulous people politics can produce."


Not a mea culpa, just a statement of facts.

A story:
As the Union Jack was lowered in a newly-independent African state, the outgoing British Governor said to the new President:
"We brought your people education, improved agriculture, railways, modern healthcare....why do you hate us so much?"
The President said: "Because of the look in your eye."

Jack, surely you understand that people do not like being treated as second-class citizens in their own country, no matter how good Coca Cola tastes.

Jack17
12-06-2009, 22:20
"With all due respect, Jack, you wrote absolute rubbish."

Do I write anything else from your point of view? With the foreknowledge that I will make no argument that will satisfy you; nevertheless I'll venture forth.

I realize that 12 is generally a safe age to find a virgin, even in Russia. While 12 is a bit young, even for a lecherous old man like me; I dare say there are a thing or two I've taught more than one 18 or 19 year old; but rape? No, you can't rape the willing and they were very willing.

Moving on to my hopeless effort to persuade you of the reasonableness of my argument, let me say, the East India Company made money the old fashioned way - buying low, and selling high. My question, and it's only a question, is did the East India Company steal Indian wheat, or did they pay Indian farmers a fare price for their harvest? I don't know; but I suspect they paid them something.

My other point, put another way is: 'How can you quantify in dollars, pounds or rubles, the benefits to India today of the British Raj?' Not that it's a justification for slavery, but more than one serious commentator in America has made the observation that African-Americans are far better off today then their cousins who were left behind in Ghana and Nigeria; in fact, one is the First Lady of the USA. One of the reasons for this is the long tradition of English Common Law and English political philosophy that makes it possible for Americans to chose the kind of leader they want. I know it's your habit to say, "A plague on all their houses" and cast all governments as equally corrupt into the same cauldron; but I think a contrast of the leadership of Obama and Bush should disprove that argument for most; if not you and Kvarti.

As for Napoleon and Alexander I, I firmly believe had Napoleon triumphed over Alexander and placed another Monarch on the Russian throne, as he did Bernadotte in Sweden; Russia may well have become a viable contitutional monarchy as did England in the 19th century and today you'd be living in a country where there was a reasonable opportunity to politic for the socialist government you want. It's all speculation; but not unreasonable speculation.

Allow me to further opine, long before Napoleon, had Rome expanded it's empire further north from the Black Sea and further east from Germany, there would be a much different Russia today. I believe the foundation of English speaking society today was Tiberius' conquest of Anglia in 43 AD. At least the Indians can be grateful the British didn't crucify or sell their women and children into slavery.

Jack17
12-06-2009, 22:23
"Jack, surely you understand that people do not like being treated as second-class citizens in their own country, no matter how good Coca Cola tastes."

And I'm sure you Brits are well on your way to finding that out given current demographic trends in the UK.

robertmf
12-06-2009, 22:39
"For the past 300 years, the revolutions and reforms experienced by almost all other developed countries have been averted in Britain by foreign remittances."

For 300 years Britain has outsourced mayhem. Finally it's coming home | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/08/british-empire-colonies-banks-reform)



:bash: Sounds like you teadrinkers are still whinging about losing The Colonies. :rasta:

Scrat335
12-06-2009, 23:17
All good things must come to an end. I'm not worried though, the next group of theives to take power won't miss a beat. Any backtalk from the serfs, no matter who they are will be dealt with in the usual manner.

Russian Lad
12-06-2009, 23:35
Do I write anything else from your point of view? With the foreknowledge that I will make no argument that will satisfy you; nevertheless I'll venture forth.

I realize that 12 is generally a safe age to find a virgin, even in Russia. While 12 is a bit young, even for a lecherous old man like me; I dare say there are a thing or two I've taught more than one 18 or 19 year old; but rape? No, you can't rape the willing and they were very willing.

Moving on to my hopeless effort to persuade you of the reasonableness of my argument, let me say, the East India Company made money the old fashioned way - buying low, and selling high. My question, and it's only a question, is did the East India Company steal Indian wheat, or did they pay Indian farmers a fare price for their harvest? I don't know; but I suspect they paid them something.

My other point, put another way is: 'How can you quantify in dollars, pounds or rubles, the benefits to India today of the British Raj?' Not that it's a justification for slavery, but more than one serious commentator in America has made the observation that African-Americans are far better off today then their cousins who were left behind in Ghana and Nigeria; in fact, one is the First Lady of the USA. One of the reasons for this is the long tradition of English Common Law and English political philosophy that makes it possible for Americans to chose the kind of leader they want. I know it's your habit to say, "A plague on all their houses" and cast all governments as equally corrupt into the same cauldron; but I think a contrast of the leadership of Obama and Bush should disprove that argument for most; if not you and Kvarti.

As for Napoleon and Alexander I, I firmly believe had Napoleon triumphed over Alexander and placed another Monarch on the Russian throne, as he did Bernadotte in Sweden; Russia may well have become a viable contitutional monarchy as did England in the 19th century and today you'd be living in a country where there was a reasonable opportunity to politic for the socialist government you want. It's all speculation; but not unreasonable speculation.

Allow me to further opine, long before Napoleon, had Rome expanded it's empire further north from the Black Sea and further east from Germany, there would be a much different Russia today. I believe the foundation of English speaking society today was Tiberius' conquest of Anglia in 43 AD. At least the Indians can be grateful the British didn't crucify or sell their women and children into slavery.


Sometimes you provide good thoughts and a solid argument, like all of us here:). Even DDT and Fenrir sometimes give a matter an unusual light and their intellect shines through in brilliant colors:).
I do not dream about a purely socialist government, I want a mixture, a synergy.
India benefited to a certain extent from its colonization by the West, but again, my proverbial 12 y.o. would also have benefited from the gang-rape - quite a simple analogy that is rather easy to understand. Most of India's development actually started after it gained independence, and the true economic boost saw its inception as recently as 1991.
Those blacks in the US (some of them, I saw in Alabama, still live in pitiful shacks and cardboard boxes, just like some of their African brothers) paid a dear price for their rather relative freedom. Nobody would want his relatives to be slaves to have a bright future.
We have taken the best from the French culture, I think - in my city of Saint Petersburg there are lots and lots of buildings designed by the French architects. The Russian nobility spoke French in parlors before 1812 quite freely and enjoyed it. Doubt we would have benefited any further if we became a colony. Besides, the French in general, imho, are boring in their desire to save every kopeck - misers even worse than some of the Brits:). So, they would wipe us clean of what we have even more effectively than the current oil and gas bandits.


While my knowledge of British history is inadequate to argue the point; nevertheless, I doubt it.

Quite. Perfectly phrased. I have nothing to add...

You probably were in a bit of a hurry to answer to my retort when you thanked Qdos for this post, missing his mordantly British sarcasm:).

Jack17
13-06-2009, 00:37
"You probably were in a bit of a hurry to answer to my retort when you thanked Qdos for this post, missing his mordantly British sarcasm."

Yes, I'm sure you're correct on your last point. Qdos will never forgive my sympathy for homosexuals; but, in truth, if you'll recall his spat with Carbo on British immigration, my position on this issue is closer to his than it is to Mickey or your's.

Returning to the subject of this thread, I work with an incredibly smart and well educated Indian engineer, who I turned to after reading this thread earlier today and asked him: "Raj, on the whole, do you feel India is better off, or worse off, today as a result of the British Raj?" His answer was emphatically, "Better off." He went on to explain while the English generally prevented development of Indian industry and infrastructure; Indian society and commerce today would simply not be possible without the judicial and bureaucratic system instituted by the English. He said while the elected government often falls apart in its ability to govern, general commerce and society continue along just fine because the courts and civil services continue to function based on the systems and laws instituted by the British.

I've been to Alabama too, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone, black or white, living any worse in the US than the average Russian lives today. And returning to Obama, would a Barack Obama, Sr. have been conceivable without British colonial rule in Kenya? What would you give the chances of a bright young Kenyan boy to gain an English liberal education sufficient to successfully pursue a doctorate at Harvard absent 200 years of British rule in Kenya? I maintain the current US President is a product not only of British colonial rule in my country, but in Kenya as well.

As for Russia, note, I did not say it would be better today if Napoleon replaced a German Czar with a French one, or the Romans conquered the Sythians; I just said it would be different. Frankly, for me, it would be worse. It would be as boring and conventional as Germany or the UK; but from the perspective of the poor Babushka trying to live on a pension of a few hundred rubles with no health care, a boring Russia with social services like Germany's might be preferable.

PS: I'm glad you find my posts at least as well reasoned as DDTs'; given your frequent agreement with his posts, I'll take that as a compliment.

Adamodeus
13-06-2009, 01:03
I've been to Alabama too, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone, black or white, living any worse in the US than the average Russian lives today.
Are you kidding? I've got to words for ya: "trailers" and "'gators". The average Russian still enjoys free health care and free educations. (Qdos, fill in with jokes about the quality of Russian health care and education) If you don't have some kind of family business in Alabama, you're screwed.


but from the perspective of the poor Babushka trying to live on a pension of a few hundred rubles with no health care, a boring Russia with social services like Germany's might be preferable.

I doubt that the aforementioned babushka would be able to find free health care (not stellar by any standards and yet) in Germany and certainly not in Alabama.

Russian Lad
13-06-2009, 01:04
I work with an incredibly smart and well educated Indian engineer, who I turned to after reading this thread earlier today and asked him: "Raj, on the whole, do you feel India is better off, or worse off, today as a result of the British Raj?" His answer was emphatically, "Better off."

Hope you are not his superior and cannot influence his career in any way:).
Some Indians will agree with you, I am sure, for various reasons of their own, but statistically you have not proven anything.


I've been to Alabama too, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone, black or white, living any worse in the US than the average Russian lives today. And returning to Obama, would a Barack Obama, Sr. have been conceivable without British colonial rule in Kenya? What would you give the chances of a bright young Kenyan boy to gain an English liberal education sufficient to successfully pursue a doctorate at Harvard absent 200 years of British rule in Kenya? I maintain the current US President is a product not only of British colonial rule in my country, but in Kenya as well.

Well, good for the US and Obama personally. However, you are treading on a razor-blade thin path here - bolsheviks, for one, justified all their murders and gulags by claiming that they provided a better living for their citizens and especially workers (it was true to some extent, a worker's salary was sometimes two times higher than an engineer's), the nazi also had a justification for their atrocities. You cannot justify slavery by citing benefits for those genarations of blacks that enjoy relative freedom and prosperity now.


As for Russia, note, I did not say it would be better today if Napoleon replaced a German Czar with a French one, or the Romans conquered the Sythians; I just said it would be different. Frankly, for me, it would be worse. It would be as boring and conventional as Germany or the UK; but from the perspective of the poor Babushka trying to live on a pension of a few hundred rubles with no health care, a boring Russia with social services like Germany's might be preferable.


I am not too happy about the current situation in Russia, either, however, poor Russian babushkas have absolutely nothing to do with the British colonies:).


given your frequent agreement with his posts

It is exactly the opposite, in fact. Let's ask DDT in person, though. DDT, do you think I frequently agree with your posts, on the whole?

Qdos
13-06-2009, 01:05
As the Union Jack was lowered in a newly-independent African state, the outgoing British Governor said to the new President:

"We brought your people education, improved agriculture, railways, modern healthcare....why do you hate us so much?"

That reminds me of the following... :rofl:

YouTube- What have the Romans given us in return?

Jack17
13-06-2009, 01:17
Hope you were not his superior and cannot influence his career in any way:).
Some Indians will agree with you, I am sure, for various reasons of their own, but statistically you have not proven anything.



Well, good for the US and Obama personally. However, you are treading on a razor-blade thin path here - bolsheviks, for one, justified all their murders and gulags by claiming that they provide a better living for their citizens and especially workers (it was true to some extent, a worker's salary was sometimes two times higher than an engineer's), the nazi also had a justification for their atrocities. You cannot justify slavery by citing benefints for those genarations of blacks that enjoy relative freedom and prosperity now.

I'm not justifying anything. And I missed your statistics; could you please post them again?

As for colonialism, it's all relative. Could one make a similar case for French or Spanish colonialism? What about the colonialism of the Czars or Stalin? Would any Finn make a case for a hundred years of czarist rule or a Balt for 50 years of Soviet rule? I'm not making so much a case as an observation that there were real and lasting benefits to 400 years of the Pax Britanica; while I suppose the best you can say for Hitler is that he built a nice highway system - at the cost of 50M lives.

Jack17
13-06-2009, 01:22
"The average Russian still enjoys free health care and free educations."

Would you mind providing some specifics on that and I'll pass them along to my relatives in Russia.

Honestly, I'm not an expert on health care in Germany. How about if we replace Germany with Canada - would that make you feel better?

Russian Lad
13-06-2009, 01:23
I'm not justifying anything. And I missed your statistics; could you please post them again?

As for colonialism, it's all relative. Could one make a similar case for French or Spanish colonialism? What about the colonialism of the Czars or Stalin? Would any Finn make a case for a hundred years of czarist rule or a Balt for 50 years of Soviet rule? I'm not making so much a case as an observation that there were real and lasting benefits to 400 years of the Pax Britanica; while I suppose the best you can say for Hitler is that he build a nice highway system - at the cost of 50M lives.

I was just saying that an opinion of one Indian does not matter much statistically.
Everything is relative, I agree. But something is always more relative than yet another relative opinion or situation:).

Adamodeus
13-06-2009, 02:04
"The average Russian still enjoys free health care and free educations."

Would you mind providing some specifics on that and I'll pass them along to my relatives in Russia.

Honestly, I'm not an expert on health care in Germany. How about if we replace Germany with Canada - would that make you feel better?

Well, yes, it would. But then again, the average person in Canada does a hell of a lot better than, I don't know, 2/3 of the EU? And this is certainly true about the US (and maybe, just maybe, even Australia).

Jack17
13-06-2009, 03:36
I was just saying that an opinion of one Indian does not matter much statistically.
Everything is relative, I agree. But something is always more relative than yet another relative opinion or situation:).

You're correct; one one billionth of a population sampling is not much of a statistic; but it's one one billionth more than your's and I would weight more heavily the opinion of an educated Indian about his history than the opinion of say, an American, Brit or Russian about that history.

As for DDT, I'm sorry if I got it wrong; but I thought you and he shared a common hatred of gays and you were both of the opinion that 9/11 was the result of a vast, undisclosed conspiracy. And I think it's fare to say you both share a disdain for the American government; he because he hates liberals and you because you see no difference between liberal and conservative American politicians. But, if you'd like to draw a sharper distinction between his views and yours, go ahead.

Jack17
13-06-2009, 03:42
Well, yes, it would. But then again, the average person in Canada does a hell of a lot better than, I don't know, 2/3 of the EU? And this is certainly true about the US (and maybe, just maybe, even Australia).


As a footnote to this thread, I maintain there is free health care in the US for all. People without insurance in the US (legal and illegal aliens included) simply go to hospital emergency rooms for care. The hospitals are obliged to treat everyone by law. It is an extremely inefficient and costly form of universal health care that Obama is trying to change. But actually, that Russian grandmother, since about 1966, would be far better off in the US, if she is older than 65 with Medicare and Social Security, than she is in Russia.

Russian Lad
13-06-2009, 03:45
You're correct; one one billionth of a population sampling is not much of a statistic; but it's one one billionth more than your's and I would weight more heavily the opinion of an educated Indian about his history than the opinion of say, an American, Brit or Russian about that history.

As for DDT, I'm sorry if I got it wrong; but I thought you and he shared a common hatred of gays and you were both of the opinion that 9/11 was the result of a vast, undisclosed conspiracy. And I think it's fare to say you both share a disdain for the American government; he because he hates liberals and you because you see no difference between liberal and conservative American politicians. But, if you'd like to draw a sharper distinction between his views and yours, go ahead.


One billionth, exactly. Not much statistically, but ok, you are one billionth ahead of me:). And you have not yet answered my question whether he is your employee or you can affect his career in any way. The reason I asked: Indians in their majority are still rather cheap labor, do not make very reliable partners, hence most likely he is your employee. With all the implications to this particular case:).
As to DDT, let him just answer my question, I will go along with his answer.


But actually, that Russian grandmother, since about 1966, would be far better off in the US, if she is older than 65 with Medicare and Social Security, than she is in Russia.

I absolutely agree with you on the whole, however, it has little bearing on the subject - British colonies. Anyway, I doubt healthcare in Russia would be better if we were a French colony of a sort - the idea never crossed my mind. The French lost because they were a weaker nation at that time - militarily, spiritually, maybe even financially - that's all, end of the story. And the French got to be thankful to the Russians that we were reluctant to make them our colony - we went all the way to Paris and our cossacks had some fun there. But they did not like the food and the women there, so it was decided not to make them join Russia.

fenrir
13-06-2009, 10:50
I'm not justifying anything. And I missed your statistics; could you please post them again?

As for colonialism, it's all relative. Could one make a similar case for French or Spanish colonialism? What about the colonialism of the Czars or Stalin? Would any Finn make a case for a hundred years of czarist rule or a Balt for 50 years of Soviet rule? I'm not making so much a case as an observation that there were real and lasting benefits to 400 years of the Pax Britanica; while I suppose the best you can say for Hitler is that he built a nice highway system - at the cost of 50M lives.

It is interesting you mentioned Balts because one thing I have heard more times than I can count is a Russian person saying 'look at all we did for Estonia and they aren't grateful.' Some of them even do it with a straight face while pointing at abandoned factories (which look like settings from a slasher flick) or panel houses (which even local Russians try to move out of as soon as they can afford to).

Russian Lad
13-06-2009, 17:40
It is interesting you mentioned Balts because one thing I have heard more times than I can count is a Russian person saying 'look at all we did for Estonia and they aren't grateful.' Some of them even do it with a straight face while pointing at abandoned factories (which look like settings from a slasher flick) or panel houses (which even local Russians try to move out of as soon as they can afford to).

It is one thing to be ungrateful, they can well be, and maybe their ungratefulness is even justified, on the whole, but it is another thing to stage nazi parades and to desecrate the tombs and memorials of dead Soviet soldiers. I personally can kill for that. Or at least make someone go to the hospital for a couple of months.

fenrir
13-06-2009, 19:26
It is one thing to be ungrateful, they can well be, and maybe their ungratefulness is even justified, on the whole, but it is another thing to stage nazi parades and to desecrate the tombs and memorials of dead Soviet soldiers. I personally can kill for that. Or at least make someone go to the hospital for a couple of months.

The parade was protected under free speech and assembly laws (and it was private, not government backed). The memorial was moved, not desecrated (unlike the memorial in Khimki - go kill someone there, though protesters there had to deal with OMON - can you kill a unit of them?). Btw, there are plenty of people here who can do to you what you would like to do to them and ironically, many of them were Soviet-trained.

Russian Lad
13-06-2009, 20:03
The parade was protected under free speech and assembly laws (and it was private, not government backed).

What kind of a free speech law protects a private nazi parade? Show it to me.


Btw, there are plenty of people here who can do to you what you would like to do to them and ironically, many of them were Soviet-trained.


Their ability to think and move fast is proverbial, doubt they are much of a threat. Georgians were also trained under the Soviets, it did not do their army any good last year. Some people never learn:).

fenrir
13-06-2009, 22:30
What kind of a free speech law protects a private nazi parade? Show it to me.



Their ability to think and move fast is proverbial, doubt they are much of a threat. Georgians were also trained under the Soviets, it did not do their army any good last year. Some people never learn:).

The same free speech and assembly laws as in the US that allow Nazi marches through Jewish neighborhoods. To deny them a permit without good reasons that would sway a court would be a violation of the law and result in lawsuits.

Kvartiraokhotnik
13-06-2009, 22:37
With all due respect, Jack, you wrote absolute rubbish.


:bowdown:

You gotta hand it to RL. He tells it like it is :celebrate:

Russian Lad
14-06-2009, 00:45
The same free speech and assembly laws as in the US that allow Nazi marches through Jewish neighborhoods. To deny them a permit without good reasons that would sway a court would be a violation of the law and result in lawsuits.

Over 50 million dead people in WW-II is not a good reason? I am not sure they are legal in Europe.

Qdos
14-06-2009, 01:21
To deny them a permit without good reasons that would sway a court would be a violation of the law and result in lawsuits.

It's well known the USA has become politically shy of lawsuits, doesn't mean the resultant traits which are exhibited are necessarily upstanding or decent of course - RL will tell you as much himself, he keeps telling me how he was educated there... :)

Russian Lad
14-06-2009, 01:39
he keeps telling me how he was educated there...


I was not hanging around the nazi there, so you guys tell me. I admit it is possible that if the gays have their parades there the nazi do, too. I am curious as to the zoophiles - are they denied in the West their democratic right to pork pigs and sheep and to have parades? I heard zoophily is not legal in some of the states, in Russia it is perfecty legal. Conclusion: Russia is more democratic than the US!

Qdos
14-06-2009, 01:42
I am curious as to the zoophiles - are they denied in the West their democratic right to pork pigs and sheep and to have parades?

That sounds more like Wales or Australia than the US of A... well in regards to the sheep [-]shaggin'[/-] it does... (sorry Andy...) :devilish:

robertmf
14-06-2009, 02:46
That sounds more like Wales or Australia than the US of A... well in regards to the sheep [-]shaggin'[/-] it does... (sorry Andy...) :devilish:

Could be West Virginians !! Do you know what a W.Va. family tree looks like ??... a single branch.

Isn't it the Kiwis who sheep shag .... :yuk: ... rabbits too (from what the Aussies say).

vladimir_seroff
14-06-2009, 09:14
The same free speech and assembly laws as in the US that allow Nazi marches through Jewish neighborhoods. To deny them a permit without good reasons that would sway a court would be a violation of the law and result in lawsuits.

I totally agree. Free speech is free speech. As soon, as we start sayings things like "but he/she was not wearing the right hat", etc., there is no free speech, anymore.

There are more pragmatic ways to fight whatever we disagree with (however vehemently) than shutting the mouths of those we disagree with. This would portray us as weak. Should we be afraid of them walking around wearing whatever they want and saying whatever they want, provided they are not in a way of something from purely practical standpoint? For instance, doing it somewhere, where it would stall traffic may be an issue. Doing it during the time or at a place of heightened terrorist alert, for instance, may be an issue, too.

My 5 cents.

PS: There is one exception that is usually made for things like shouting fire in a crowded theater, when there is no fire. In the context of every culture and every society it may translate into different things.

Kvartiraokhotnik
14-06-2009, 09:50
RL will tell you as much himself, he keeps telling me how he was educated there... :)

Explains his love of socialism much better than any Russian roots he has. :rasta:

fenrir
14-06-2009, 10:02
Over 50 million dead people in WW-II is not a good reason? I am not sure they are legal in Europe.

The Nazi party is legal in the US as is the communist party. If they form their group and register according to the law they cannot be stopped only because of their name or philosophy. They have to commit crimes to get in trouble and even then only the lawbreakers will get arrested; the group won't be officially disbanded.

Nazi parties are illegal in many (if not all) EU countries but parties under a different name and a little different philosophy get in. The BNP party in the UK seems to fit this bill to some degree, but any Brits here please correct me if I am wrong. I am admittedly weak on British political parties.

vladimir_seroff
14-06-2009, 10:05
"For the past 300 years, the revolutions and reforms experienced by almost all other developed countries have been averted in Britain by foreign remittances."

For 300 years Britain has outsourced mayhem. Finally it's coming home | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/08/british-empire-colonies-banks-reform)

Sweden is still going strong in this respect.

Qdos
14-06-2009, 13:02
Nazi parties are illegal in many (if not all) EU countries but parties under a different name and a little different philosophy get in. The BNP party in the UK seems to fit this bill to some degree, but any Brits here please correct me if I am wrong. I am admittedly weak on British political parties.

You can't compare the BNP to The Nazi party, they'll never hold power like Hitlers boys had and times have changed. Nazi memorabilia is illegal in some EU member states, as would be similarly themed gatherings.

Oddly enough Germany seems to be more lax than anywhere. It's not all that uncommon for their skinhead gangs to gather with swastikas tatooed on their bodies, and insult and attack immigrants (for some reason they seem to like picking on Turks...)

However - what the EU doesn't allow is for people to be muzzled if they're peacably expressing an opinion, or even making a terribly bad joke and an awful faux pas...

Sic... BBC NEWS | UK | Harry says sorry for Nazi costume (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4170083.stm) ;)

Russian Lad
14-06-2009, 19:31
Nazi parties are illegal in many (if not all) EU countries

Estonia wants to be an exception? She is a bastard child of EU economically, maybe the Estonians would be better off bringing to the European table something more valuable than the nazi and their parades?


However - what the EU doesn't allow is for people to be muzzled if they're peacably expressing an opinion

A peaceful nazi is an oxymoron, don't you agree, Qdos?

Qdos
14-06-2009, 20:55
A peaceful nazi is an oxymoron, don't you agree, Qdos?

Never met one RL, so I guess you'd be spot on with your analogy... :bowdown:

fenrir
14-06-2009, 21:44
Estonia wants to be an exception? She is a bastard child of EU economically, maybe the Estonians would be better off bringing to the European table something more valuable than the nazi and their parades?



A peaceful nazi is an oxymoron, don't you agree, Qdos?

Estonia is not the exception. There is no Nazi party here. However, there are people who have marched in memory of those who served in the 20th SS Waffen-Grenadier-Division (before someone makes any comments, do some research so you don't come off looking the fool) in the past. Only a few hundred individuals were involved and it was a private, not state, affair. That is a big difference from having a Nazi party.