What Country (Besides the One You Live In) Do You Respect the Most?

Remove all ads!

Hooray for the three people who chose New Zealand! Respect!

Um, seeing as I can't choose New Zealand, I'll have to go with the countries that to me are most like New Zealand, namely Australia, Canada, England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. I'd also have to add Italy to that list, if only for their passionate approach to food.

Note that every country on this list has a rugby team that competes in the World Cup finals.

 

Why's that Kuemp?

HB, I definitely overlooked the Italians food. That's one thing to respect them for, for sure. They know their onions over there, quite literally.

 

Thats what every Empire has ever done. It's a 'side effect' of military expansion yet the British are always picked out for it. The Romans, the Christian states, the Mongols, the Huns, the conquistador's aren't villanised in the same way. May I remind you how the new state the United States of America treat the native Americans (Britain also banned slavery whilst it was still commonly used in America). Not to mention the crimes of the Third Reich. So I just don't understand why the British are individually picked out for "destroying the culture of other nation's".

 

Because in a lot of those cases that you stated, their rule came to an end. Sure there is still traces of the time when they colonised countries like New Caladonia (sp?) and others (the Spanish in South America) but the ruling of those countries has mainly passed back to the original owners except for a few cases. Ask yourself this: How many African-Americans and Aboriginals do you see in politics in their respective countries compared to the white man?

PS: Out of those other empires that you stated, the only instance that one of them decimated another race that I can remember was when the Conquistadors invaded South America and pretty much eradicated the Aztecs but please feel free to correct me if I am wrong as my history on some of the other cultures is lacking.

 

None.

I like some nations more than others, but I don't respect any, maybe parts of them or individual people.

 

Between 1918 and the 60's the British Empire gave each colony it's independence. Thats gave not having the Empire dragged to piece's like most Empire's in history.

The same is true for all European colonial Empire's. The last black leader of an African nation was removed when Mussolini
invaded Abyssinia.

After Roman conquest's they tried to "rehabilitate" the native populations with the Roman way of life. This often involved forcing the native people's into slavery and giving the land to Roman nobles and in extreme cases the complete destruction of a civilisation such as Carthage. The USA killed the native American's almost to extinction, if that's not destroying culture I don't know what is. The third Reich exterminated between 6-8 million Jew's. Slavery was used on a much higher scale a thousand years before the British Empire, who later outlawed slavery which was enforced almost entirely by the Royal Navy until the League of Nations managed to bring an almost complete end to it. Yet the British Empire is considered the worst abuse of slavery in history.

 

Bah. All this talk of imperial domination of 'inferior' races is in itself racist and egocentric. Take a step back and you will see that the 'dominating' civilisations also no longer exist. The 'conquering' Spanish and English 'empires' no longer exist in the form they did 500 years ago. And, for example, just what is an 'English civilisation' anyway? The British Isles have been invaded, overrun, and infiltrated so many times over the last 2,000 years that no trace remains of the original inhabitants (if anyone can even remember who they were).

[ December 02, 2006, 20:18: Message edited by: Harbourboy ]

 

egypt

 

Only you have brought up the word 'inferior', hence you're the only one talking about racism. Talk about putting a round peg a square hole, lad!

 

I'm happy enough with the wage, I live in a state with one of the highest... In January it'll be $7.93 an hour (6.54 Euro... I think).

Yes, yes I do.

 

6.54 euro minimum wage? wow, that's really low. That's like... what... £4? £4.50? I wouldn't piss on that. That really needs addressing.

 

Yeh I was just about to say that, when I work I get £5.65 an hour which is around 8 euro's? And I'm only a student.

 

Sorry, but I'm with Kuemper and Trellheim.

My definition of a 'nation' is a group of people organized ostensibly for mutual benefit and protection, yet are almost invariably misguided from these goals by those who control the nation.

I can list off individuals across the breadth of history from just about every background who can claim my respect, but I have yet to find a single nation (including those I call my own) that has earned any respect from me.

(maybe a poor choice of words there in the opener, Aldeth )

 

England still would have lost. Look at the problems America has had with puny nations like Iraq and Vietnam (and that's with England's help). Great powers never learn how expensive it is in blood and treasure to occupy smaller countries that just don't want to be occupied. And keep in mind England had to hire Germans to help them fight the Revolution, and those "thick headed Yanks" still managed to run the English "lobsters" clear into the Atlantic

 

Minimum wage is about that here. But then, I guess our cost of living is probably lower. Think the minimum wage is about NZ$10.50. As a student, I earn about US$7.80 (4 pounds or 5.9 euro) an hour, before tax.

 

Germans? You must be thinking of the KGL (King's German Legion). We didn't 'hire' them, they fled to Britain from Hanover when the French invaded. They swore loyalty to the English kings and were incorporated into the military. We had those around for years and years. As apposed to the French, who were o-so glad for the chance to have a pop at us again .

We just couldn't get more soldiers there and were outnumbered by more than 2:1 by the end of that war. It was inevitable we were going to lose, but the powers that be must have thought it not worth the effort of retaking/reinforcing, for whatever reasons. Perhaps it was considered too 'remote' part of the empire, I don't know.

It's also pretty iffy to compare 18th century warfare to modern day warfare! We had a long history of subduing nations who didn't 'want' to be occupied. It's something we excelled at nobody 'wants' to be occupied, we just had the sense not to change things too much in our new colonies. Let them live how they did before, we just install a British flag over the place.

Well, I guess it's all speculation and ifs and buts, but I think we could have kept a hold of our holdings in America if we really wanted to and didn't have other things on our plate at the time.

 

But what would have been the practical point of 'keeping hold of your holdings'? How would you personally have benefited from that?

 

I'm not sure I get what you mean. I would have benefited nothing. Why would I? I just find history interesting and do a lot of 'what if' wondering. I'm just fascinated by it all. I mean, the bravery of these men is beyond my comprehension. Going into war is something, but standing in a perfect line, just waiting for the enemies musket volley. It was astonishing courage and discipline really. I think I for one would've tried my hand at desertion!

 

I guess what I am saying is: what difference does it make whether England held onto America or not? It probably wouldn't have been worth the bother anyway. Imagine trying to administer the thing. Nightmare.