Which Civilization has been the biggest bunch of bastards throughout history?

[Bereta_Eder]

then how come in colonization the french got a bonus of good cooperation with the indians?

[KrazyHorse]

X-post. Reply to Ribannah's best friend

I agree with your point, but my point is that I'm judging on a variety of qualifications. That includes motivation, but it also includes net results.

The fact that the British eventually used their position to actually give something back to the people they had colonised (not especially true in the New World; more true in India and Africa) also loses them some bastardiness points, and the basic fact is that the French (although grabbing a significant portion of Africa) were a distant third (or fourth, with the Portuguese) in terms of colonial power...

I suppose one could make a case for the Romans, but the fact that their imperial days were so long ago makes it difficult for me to feel the same sort of revulsion for them that I feel for the more recent conquerors...

[Jay Bee]

KH, I understand but my point still is that this kind of comparisons are pretty unfair. As to the results, what makes you think that the British did actually give something back to the people they had colonized while the Spanish did not? Isn't that statement flawed by your cultural background? Looking from my side I can't see what the Brits did better in Asia and Africa than the Spanish in Latin America, really...

[KrazyHorse]

In Africa, for example, the Brits did not practice wholesale dislocation of native peoples, direct exploitation in forced-labour camps, genocide,...

They eventually realised that at some point they would have to give their colonial possessions back to the people they took them from in the first place. Spain only lost its possessions through their inability to hold them, and they left behind them a continent populated by their own seed. Same thing that happened in US+Canada, but less people ended up dead as a result.

[SlowwHand]

What about the Greeks? Yeah, how about them?

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
What about the Greeks? Yeah, how about them?

wha?????

[KrazyHorse]

Jay Bee

Even in NA the Brits had, by the 19th century, developed a more enlightened outlook on the natives than their American offshoots who were busy agressively expanding their rule westwards. Development of the Prairies was slower in British NA than to the south, in part because of the reluctance of the British to send out the Army to dislocate the tribes (in fairness, also because of the less-hospitable climate).

[SlowwHand]

The Greeks. They do all this "head stuff".
Aristotle, Plato, all those brain-suckers.

[Bereta_Eder]

we are good people

[Vandal-1]

For three achievements in the art of genocide,slavery and polution,I was forced to face the bitter truth as a American that even though some other power would ve created the H-bomb we did and we used it and we excused it:even though some other power would've been greedy an arogant enough to unleash profiteers on uneducated and impoverished populations to exploit children we did it;and lastly but not leastly even though some other power might ve taken all it could grap for rescources even from its own children ,we did it.Now!! we scratch our heads cause we did it. We gave genocidal maniacs the means to destroy the entire planet,Islam can't top that and I feel sorry for them cause they want to challenge the biggest bastards in history.I fear what we will do to retain the title.

[Jay Bee]

It seems to me KH, that you are missing now the fact that one has to judge things within the time frame they take place. The realization that all humans had certain rights and the social revolution these ideas brought about occurred before the British established themselves in Africa. It is therefore logical that the British used more humane methods (or less inhumane methods if you prefer) to deal with the natives... the final outcome is that the Brits exploited the natives to their own benefit, just like the Spaniards did two centuries before. They left very little that would help improve the life conditions of their colonies.

I did not understand the difference you make between the Brits realizing they had to give back their colonies one day and the Spanish losing them by force. It seems to me the Brits held their colonies as long as they could, just like the Spanish. The Brits were just smarter. It is an undeniable fact that the Brits have always been smarter than the Spaniards in most areas.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara




Yep, nothing but commie duplicity and Russian stupidity here. Has nothing to do with the fact that when the Russian Socialists split in 1903, those with Lenin were in the majority, and those against were in the minority.

Your right it doesn't have a thing to do with it.

Only an idiot accepts being called the minority party. At any time.

[MrFun]

I would have also voted for Palestine, but there is no Palestine nation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

MrFun, you are joking, right?

And yes there is a Palestinian nation, but no Palestinian state.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
MrFun, you are joking, right?

Of course he is, we all know those peace-loving pals could never be bastards.