Please tell me this is a joke...England afraid to fly its own flag [Archive]

Rob Lister

4th June 2006, 09:59 AM

snip
Following threats by extremist Islamic group, several corporations, chain of pubs ban England flag

Following warnings by extremist Islamic group al-Muhajiroun, in which the group said that the red cross in the England flag symbolizes the 'blood thirsty crusaders' and the occupation of Muslims, some of the largest companies in England have ordered their workers not to wave the flags.

The flag has recently appeared in England on everything from bikinis to cars, and sold in endless versions in stores.

But the Islamic protest forced some corporations, such as cable companies NTL, Heathrow airport in London, and even the Drivers and Vehicles Licensing Agency to ban the flag in every form due to fears from reactions of Muslims.

The Sun tabloid newspaper has in recent days launched a campaign to bring back the flag, and has published a blacklist of companies preventing their workers from expressing their patriotism at work.

The Sun said that a large pub network has banned drinkers from entering with symbols of the national team.

The hero of the day is a two year-old toddler, who was thrown out with his parents from Leicester, because he wore the England team's uniform.

While we tease our Sister Nation for crooked teeth and an inability to cook anything worth eating, we generally respect her very greatly. It would be a shame to find this article is true. Someone debunk this for me...pretty please.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3258613,00.html

Mycroft

4th June 2006, 10:02 AM

I really hope that's not true.

andyandy

4th June 2006, 10:02 AM

storm in a teacup.....whipped up by our lovely tabloid press....move along, nothing to see here :D

tkingdoll

4th June 2006, 10:07 AM

Hmm. Well, regarding the pub thing, it's not uncommon for pubs to ban football colours in anticipation of fighting, although that's usually between two English teams rather than England. For example, Wetherspoons pubs usually don't show the games so want to keep fans out in favour of families. I'd be surprised if any pub chain had received threats from Muslim terror groups, to be honest, it doesn't seem to fit. Why pubs?

I know some companies with an ethnically diverse workplace banned the England flag during the last Euro championship, but that was about over the top politically correct HR departments, not threats.

RyanRoberts

4th June 2006, 10:08 AM

I'm as islamaphobic as the next man, but this is just plain inaccurate. Al-Muhajiroun was disbanded 3 years ago when its leader was deported. There's another organisation, consisting of some of the same guys, damned if I can remember the name right now though.

Typical damn tabloid press, even when trying to tackle an issue which need addressing they make a bloody mess.

kalen

4th June 2006, 10:09 AM

The terrorists have won?

And we were doing so well.

Darat

4th June 2006, 10:15 AM

Anyone want a photo of the Indian restaurant opposite me with it's world cup England flags proudly flying? Well even if you don't want one here it is:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/144831500dd4d8.jpg

geni

4th June 2006, 10:22 AM

snip

While we tease our Sister Nation for crooked teeth and an inability to cook anything worth eating, we generally respect her very greatly. It would be a shame to find this article is true. Someone debunk this for me...pretty please.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3258613,00.html

Technicaly there is no flag of England. There probably a couple of cases of people decideing not to fly the flag for various reasons but the story will have been blown completely out of proportion by the sun.

Rob Lister

4th June 2006, 10:23 AM

Where are the handicapp spaces?

nevermind...that's a derail. It is quite quaint. I should like to eat there.

Dr Adequate

4th June 2006, 10:49 AM

Technicaly there is no flag of England. There probably a couple of cases of people decideing not to fly the flag for various reasons but the story will have been blown completely out of proportion by the sun. Exactly.

Three words: "black bin bags".

Darat

4th June 2006, 10:53 AM

Where are the handicapp spaces?

nevermind...that's a derail. It is quite quaint. I should like to eat there.

I'm not a huge fan of Indian cuisine but even I would say it is very good food.

Abdul Alhazred

4th June 2006, 11:11 AM

Technicaly there is no flag of England.

Hmm. Unlike state flags in the USA.

Well if you all want one here is a suggestion:

Feel free to provide a link to that type of image but please don't upload it to the JREF forum server - thanks.

DavidJames

4th June 2006, 11:26 AM

Someone debunk this for me...pretty please.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3258613,00.htmlThe quote itself debunks your hyperbole.
...some corporations...Not "England"

Darat

4th June 2006, 11:30 AM

The quote itself debunks your hyperbole.
Not "England"

England was sold to a Scottish corporation on the 24th March 1603.

Jon_in_london

4th June 2006, 11:38 AM

England was sold to a Scottish corporation on the 24th March 1603.

And again in 1997

Skeptic

4th June 2006, 12:58 PM

storm in a teacup.....whipped up by our lovely tabloid press....move along, nothing to see here :D

No, andyandy, these sort of things are not storms in teacups. They are much more like that dark little cloud on the horizon, harbringer of storms, which everybody ignores under the "but the weather is nice right now and cloud is small--what's the big deal? It's just panic whipped up by the meteorologists."

Of course I am not claiming that it is only Englishmen who tend to think in this manner--it is a general human way of acting, of course--but one need not to accept everything the British tabloid press says about this to be worried.

andyandy

4th June 2006, 03:25 PM

No, andyandy, these sort of things are not storms in teacups. They are much more like that dark little cloud on the horizon, harbringer of storms, which everybody ignores under the "but the weather is nice right now and cloud is small--what's the big deal? It's just panic whipped up by the meteorologists."

Of course I am not claiming that it is only Englishmen who tend to think in this manner--it is a general human way of acting, of course--but one need not to accept everything the British tabloid press says about this to be worried.

no.....it's more like a sunny day, with somebody going "let's invent a dark cloud on the horizon to stir up some nationalism and sell some papers."
first off the story linked is BS. It's simply not true. You might want to belive that some shadowy islamic group have the English cowering behind their sofas because it fits into some whatever sterotypes you hold either on the English or on Muslims, but the story's entire focus is wrong.

Following warnings by extremist Islamic group al-Muhajiroun, in which the group said that the red cross in the England flag symbolizes the 'blood thirsty crusaders' and the occupation of Muslims, some of the largest companies in England have ordered their workers not to wave the flags.

But the Islamic protest forced some corporations, such as cable companies NTL, Heathrow airport in London, and even the Drivers and Vehicles Licensing Agency to ban the flag in every form due to fears from reactions of Muslims.

It has nothing to do with muslim protest and it has nothing to do with "extremist Islamic group al-Muhajiroun." There is no-one living in fear of the reactions of Muslims. A small number of corporations - like NTL may have asked workers not to bring flags to work....but its down to political correctness rather than the great Muslim fear that the linked article wants to present....
The tabloids have gone out of their way to create a strawman out of this.

Typical sun story in today's paper;

YOUR patriotic Sun led the way yesterday as the nation defied the killjoys to go flag crazy.

We unfurled a vast St George’s Cross at Old Trafford where England play Jamaica tonight.

The FA said: “It’s brilliant, well done!”

Our Tim Spanton wore a St George’s wig on Day 59 of his World Cup Walk in Kempten, Germany, while Page 3’s Nicola T and Emma gave out flags in London.
Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell flew hers, adding: “You’re right to take on the flag-ban killjoys.”

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006250635,00.html

But note - it's nothing to do with muslim extremists.....It's "killjoys" - ie. politically correct bosses....

http://www.ynetnews.com/ has completely misrepresented what was already a tabloid misrepresentation......

the tabloids want to rail against political correctness,
ynetnews wants to rail against muslim extremists

if you want to be worried by a misrepresentation of a misrepresentation then that's fine....but i would suggest your decision to do so is influenced by your pre-concieved notions into which this story seems to fit.

Mojo

4th June 2006, 03:36 PM

While we tease our Sister Nation for crooked teeth...Leave my teeth out of it!

andyandy

4th June 2006, 03:42 PM

at least Brits aren't fat* :)

*toungue firmly pressed against the cheek next to my lovely pearly whites.....

Zep

4th June 2006, 03:54 PM

If anyone hasn't noticed, the Union Jack has the St George cross incorporated in it, among other things. I understand it was the St George cross that was the crusader's flag as well (and I may be corrected on that too).

So all flags that have the Union Jack on them also represent the "blood thirsty crusaders" - UK, Australia, New Zealand, Bermudas, Pitcairn Island, Hawai'i...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack#Other_nations_and_regions

Abdul Alhazred

4th June 2006, 06:13 PM

The Fool

4th June 2006, 06:17 PM

epepke

4th June 2006, 10:15 PM

If anyone hasn't noticed, the Union Jack has the St George cross incorporated in it, among other things. I understand it was the St George cross that was the crusader's flag as well (and I may be corrected on that too).

Technically, this was the crusaders' flag:

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/images/jerusalemred2.gif

Zep

4th June 2006, 10:33 PM

Technically, this was the crusaders' flag:

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/images/jerusalemred2.gif

I stand corrected!

The Fool

4th June 2006, 10:41 PM

I stand corrected!
but this still leaves the important issues unresolved.....was crusader rabbit really the basis of the rocky and bullwinkle cartoons? Was the rabbit dumped and PC madness allowed to change the course of cartoon history by leading to the rerunning the theme of the little smart guy with a big dumb offsider ( in the form of rocky and bullwinkle) simply because the name crusader rabbit was politically incorrect?

I can't sleep at night because of this, it has bugged me all my life.

Zep

5th June 2006, 12:20 AM

Moose und squvirrrell...

De_Bunk

5th June 2006, 12:46 AM

richardm

5th June 2006, 02:04 AM

But the Islamic protest forced some corporations, such as cable companies NTL, Heathrow airport in London,

Further rows over the displaying of the famous flag came at Heathrow airport's Terminal 5 where it emerged construction workers had been banned from flying England flags during the World Cup. Bosses said St George crosses are a health and safety risk because they might get caught in the wind and fly on to a runway.
Workers will have their cars checked by security when they turn up on site and any flags fluttering from the roof will have to be removed. They will also be banned from putting flags on site vehicles.
The ban was contained in a notice to the estimated 5,000-strong workforce.
A spokeswoman for BAA, which is building the terminal, said : "We do have a degree of work parking which runs reasonably close to a live airfield and there are good reasons for not having anything that could blow away and fly on to the airfield."

So not Islamic pressure at all. And that's the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=388520&in_page_id=1770) clarifying that point. In fairness, Tesco did apparently ban them because they thought they might cause offence to some people, but have now retracted that. Dunno about the others listed.

It's perhaps not clear to foreigners that most of the flags that are being argued about look like this, from this shop (http://www.drgadget.co.uk/product.php?xProd=469&xSec=21):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v507/richardm/englandcarflag300.jpg

- i.e. cheaply made and somewhat flimsy flags that are designed to be clipped onto car windows. I think there are somewhat legitimate reasons to suspect that they might break off and cause problems.

The Fool

5th June 2006, 02:20 AM

Darat

5th June 2006, 02:31 AM

Yes...

The UK is kowtowing to every ethnic group...

99% of English governmental depts, local councils have banned the flying of the Cross of St.George from its vehicles and buildings...thru fear of upsetting any ethnic minority

Evidence?

Most major stores have banned the flying of the flag on its buildings or displaying the flag on its delivery vehicles...thru fear of upsetting any ethnic minority...

Evidence? And they all seem to be happy selling anything they can manage to decorate with a red cross!

Taxis cannot display Englands national flag...

Evidence?

99% of all schools do not fly the Union Jack or its national flag thru fear of upsetting one ethnic group or another..

Well no school where I grew up ever flew any flag (apart from when it was the Queens Silver Jubilee), none of them even had flag poles - so that's been the case for at least 35 years.

And I do believe just a year or so ago the Queen had another jubilee and we saw the Union flag all over the place.

But hey...Wales...Scotland...Ireland...Try telling them not to fly their national flag...

And once again its the Muslims of the UK who are most vocal in this matter...and the bleeding heart liberals of the UK just give in and pander to their whims...

Evidence?

It seems that its perfectly ok for any ethnic minority to proudly fly their national flag whenever they want.....

...snip...

As it is for the largest ethnic group in the UK - English. Also just ask some of our Scottish nationalists here such as Rolfe how she perceives the total opposite - i.e. that her "ethnic" flag etc. isn't given the due prominence it deserves and so on.

I mean even when "we" returned the Stone of Destiny the Union flag was flown higher then the Scottish flag.

H3LL

5th June 2006, 02:48 AM

Technically there is no flag of England.

No flag, no government...Do we really exist...:D

How about this as best contender for the English flag? It's a flag, not an emblem or a jack and was apparently in use when we first became England (1272ish).

http://fotw.vexillum.com/images/g/gb_ewd.gif

http://fotw.vexillum.com/images/g/gb_ewd.gif

From: Flags Of The World (http://fotw.net)

ETA: Remarkably similar in design to Epepke's (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1683324#post1683324) crusader's flag
.

H3LL

5th June 2006, 02:52 AM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v507/richardm/englandcarflag300.jpg

- i.e. cheaply made and somewhat flimsy flags that are designed to be clipped onto car windows.

You not received the e-mail going around yet, I guess:

DEPT OF TRANSPORT INITIATIVE HAS BEEN RE-LAUNCHED, MAY 2006.

Information Release.

Due to the nature of the quality of driving in England the Department of Transport has now devised a new scheme in order to identify poor drivers and give good drivers the opportunity to recognise them whilst driving. For this reason as from the middle of May 2006 those drivers who are found to be driving badly which includes:
-overtaking in dangerous places;
-hovering within one inch of the car in front;
-stopping sharply; -speeding in residential areas;
-pulling out without indication;
-performing U turns inappropriately in busy highstreets;
-under taking on motorways
-taking up more than one lane in multi lane roads,

These drivers will be issued with flags, white with a red cross, signifying their inability to drive properly. These flags must be clipped to a door of the car and be visible to all other drivers and pedestrians. Those drivers who have shown particularly poor driving skills will have to display a flag on each side of the car to indicate their greater lack of skill and general lower intelligence mindset to the general public. Please circulate this to as many other motorists as you can so that drivers and pedestrians will be aware of the meaning of these flags.

Department of Transport.

I saw one with four flags the other day. I thought it best to select a different road.

.

antihippy

5th June 2006, 03:01 AM

As it is for the largest ethnic group in the UK - English. Also just ask some of our Scottish nationalists here such as Rolfe how she perceives the total opposite - i.e. that her "ethnic" flag etc. isn't given the due prominence it deserves and so on.

Indeed.

I have no problems with "English Nationalism" if it hastens Scotland's departure from the Union! In fact I don't see what the problem with England fans flying their flag is ....

The lovely 'British' (;)) tabloid press does so like it's storms brewed up (Nato style).

I suppose they might have gotten bored with "England fans wreck [insert city of choice] after win/defeat [delete as appropriate]" so they have to change to something else.

andyandy

5th June 2006, 03:24 AM

i counted 44 English flags on the 20 minute drive to work this morning.....:D

The Painter

5th June 2006, 03:37 AM

Maybe this is why the USA and England get along so well. Everyone hates you too.

Darat

5th June 2006, 03:39 AM

Maybe this is way the USA and England get along so well. Everyone hates you too.

Well historically speaking it is hard to deny that the British have given a lot of people lots of reasons to not be so pleased with us.

andyandy

5th June 2006, 03:45 AM

Well historically speaking it is hard to deny that the British have given a lot of people lots of reasons to not be so pleased with us.

....like about 1/4 of the world's population that were under colonial rule....:D All things considered, i always find it amazing that we're not more unpopular.....guess we got off lightly :)

Lothian

5th June 2006, 03:48 AM

Well historically speaking it is hard to deny that the British have given a lot of people lots of reasons to not be so pleased with us.Is it not time to drop the subject of our Eurovision song contest entries

Darat

5th June 2006, 03:51 AM

Can we not now drop the subject of the Eurovision song contest.

That's just made me think - we never seem to have the Welsh or Scottish nationalist demanding that they have a separate entry into Eurovision, at Eurovision time they are quite happy to hide behind the label of "The UK entry"!

:D

Zep

5th June 2006, 03:52 AM

We have the same only with our unofficial emblem, the boxing kangaroo.

GO THE SOCCEROOS!

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/05/20/nualahafner2_wideweb__470x306,0.jpg

H3LL

5th June 2006, 03:54 AM

Well historically speaking it is hard to deny that the British English have given a lot of people lots of reasons to not be so pleased with us.

We were too nice.

You have to be alive to whine and grumble.

;)

.

Jocko

5th June 2006, 07:10 AM

flag nitpick...

Isn't it the Union flag? I think its only a jack if its on a ship.....

I learned that factoid last week from Dr. Who. Who says sci-fi ain't educational?

Jon_in_london

5th June 2006, 09:10 AM

Well historically speaking it is hard to deny that the British have given a lot of people lots of reasons to not be so pleased with us.

pff... they should be grateful that we gave them a language, a culture and some manners!

mummymonkey

5th June 2006, 10:18 AM

We were too nice.

You have to be alive to whine and grumble.

;)

.I'm not sure why you scored out British and put English. I think you'll find the other members of the Union weren't slow in coming forward to claim their slice of the imperial cake.

rocketdodger

5th June 2006, 10:27 AM

....like about 1/4 of the world's population that were under colonial rule....:D All things considered, i always find it amazing that we're not more unpopular.....guess we got off lightly :)

Except that apart from a few rare cases (my country being one of them), most nations were better off under colonial rule.

Giz

5th June 2006, 10:35 AM

Except that apart from a few rare cases (my country being one of them), most nations were better off under colonial rule.

That's true, but try getting that fact acknowledged!

H3LL

5th June 2006, 01:29 PM

I'm not sure why you scored out British and put English. I think you'll find the other members of the Union weren't slow in coming forward to claim their slice of the imperial cake.

Having had to listen to a Scot whine, moan and grumble for a whole evening about the terrible injustices perpetrated on his country as he slid into alcoholic oblivion may have coloured my judgment.

Throwing Picts into the conversation may have helped if I had known a bit about them or if he had ever heard of them.

The same person is singlehandedly responsible for changing me from someone that was rather proud to being British to a really, really, really big fan of Scottish independence (and by extension, Welsh and Irish).

;)

.

andyandy

5th June 2006, 02:09 PM

Except that apart from a few rare cases (my country being one of them), most nations were better off under colonial rule.

lol - have you studied much world history? :D

I'll go into detail if it's really necessary, but i can't belive it is....

H3LL

5th June 2006, 02:38 PM

lol - have you studied much world history? :D

I'll go into detail if it's really necessary, but i can't belive it is....

Rocketdodger's quite right.

If you're going to be killed , much better that you are killed by an Englishman rather than a Dutchman or a German or a Spaniard or, perish the thought, a Frenchman.

I would pretty much be a dead cert' that one or the other would be stamping over their dirt sooner or later. Much better an English.

Anyway, they should stop calling attention to the fact that they were colonised by a country with no flag or government.

How embarrassing.

;)
.

Giz

5th June 2006, 03:09 PM

Having had to listen to a Scot whine, moan and grumble for a whole evening about the terrible injustices perpetrated on his country as he slid into alcoholic oblivion may have coloured my judgment.

Throwing Picts into the conversation may have helped if I had known a bit about them or if he had ever heard of them.

The same person is singlehandedly responsible for changing me from someone that was rather proud to being British to a really, really, really big fan of Scottish independence (and by extension, Welsh and Irish).

;)

.

Might well depend if you mean:

1) Did the Empire do a lot for Scotland (i.e. the Scots that remained in the olde country),
OR
2) Did a far higher percentage Scots take advantage of the Empire (i.e. to work or emigrate) than the English?

1) might be not so much (though the benefit to the 19th Glasgow industry surely counts for something)

2) Is surely yes, the amount of Scots who sought work or new lives in the Empire was - as a percentage of population - about an order of magnitude higher than for England.

Giz

5th June 2006, 03:24 PM

lol - have you studied much world history? :D

I'll go into detail if it's really necessary, but i can't belive it is....

Really? Check out Africa prior to 1960's and then to Africa since...

And... it's not as if we went around overthrowing democracies and flouting the soveriegnty of the local people. The indigenous despots may have lost their power (my heart bleeds for them), but the local Joe Average got the protection of the English Common Law (as opposed to having his life and property subject to autocratic fiat), and English concepts and institutions (civil service, seperate judiciary, parliaments) got introduced, which are a heck of an improvement over what was there before.

To avoid presented a less than balanced view; sometimes some local traditions - even religious ones - were supressed (Suttee, Thugee etc). Nowadays I guess we'd just have to respect those as equally valid...

The Fool

6th June 2006, 01:09 AM

Lothian

6th June 2006, 01:34 AM

I totally agree....The USA has gone down the toilet since independence...In Australia we reverted to eating each other since federation. Canada? Sheeeesh, what can I say about that barbarian wasteland?Agreed; as an example of your demise look at football and how you have each in turn ruined it.

To be fair to the North Americans at least the crossbar remains, even if they don’t know which side the ball goes. In Austraila however, it has been stolen. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised given where you came from.

Jaggy Bunnet

6th June 2006, 01:48 AM

Agreed; as an example of your demise look at football and how you have each in turn ruined it.

To be fair to the North Americans at least the crossbar remains, even if they don’t know which side the ball goes. In Austraila however, it has been stolen. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised given where you came from.

Not so much stolen, more broken in half and planted to the side of the main posts. I understand this was originally done in tribute to events at Wembley in 1977, but they didn't realise that the bar was meant to be taken home and a piece of it placed behind every bar in the country rather than stuck in the ground so points can be given for nearly scoring.

The Painter

6th June 2006, 03:17 AM

The USA has gone down the toilet since independence

Hey, it's a really nice toilet.

The Fool

6th June 2006, 03:31 AM

Hey, it's a really nice toilet.
Pah...what would you know, you only live there. Trust me, I'm Australian, I know what it is really like in New york since the red coats left.....Having to queue up for baseball tickets...No free cable, it must be hell.

Jaggy Bunnet

6th June 2006, 03:49 AM

Never mind English flags, you can't even put up a Welsh flag for a bit of target practice without someone reporting you to the police:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5051162.stm

Though you do have to wonder at the mentality of someone who would actually report something like this to the police "as a joke".

Lothian

6th June 2006, 04:10 AM

rocketdodger

6th June 2006, 06:17 AM

lol - have you studied much world history? :D

I'll go into detail if it's really necessary, but i can't belive it is....

Actually I didn't specifically mean british colonial rule, I meant colonial rule in general.

I happen to think that most of the third world nations in the world would be better off if they were still run, even as a mere "colony," by a first world power. Call me crazy.

People cry all day about freedom, but the fact is that in most crappy countries all the people need to worry about is getting fed and finding jobs. Freedom can come later, since without infrastructure and government they are as oppressed by their environment as anything else.

BPSCG

6th June 2006, 06:30 AM

Never mind English flags, you can't even put up a Welsh flag for a bit of target practice without someone reporting you to the police:[quote]From the link:[quote]A pub landlady who used a Welsh flag as target practice at a St George's Day event has been questioned by police over alleged racism. Huh? Racism? Am I to understand that the Welsh constitute an entirely different race from the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes? :eek:

What are the racial characteristics that differentiate the Welsh from the other races inhabiting your misty isles? :confused:

Zep

6th June 2006, 06:34 AM

http://festival05.showcomotion.org.uk/p/films/fireman_sam.jpg

Hard to say, really...

Darat

6th June 2006, 06:41 AM

[quote=Jaggy Bunnet;1685896]Never mind English flags, you can't even put up a Welsh flag for a bit of target practice without someone reporting you to the police:[quote]From the link:Huh? Racism? Am I to understand that the Welsh constitute an entirely different race from the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes? :eek:

What are the racial characteristics that differentiate the Welsh from the other races inhabiting your misty isles? :confused:
Vocal harmony.

Lothian

6th June 2006, 06:43 AM

What are the racial characteristics that differentiate the Welsh from the other races inhabiting your misty isles? :confused:Fondness for sheep, cottage burning. The have evolved a different pallate enabling them to speak without utilising vowels. Generally Welsh are shorter and more agressive than members of the human race.

richardm

6th June 2006, 06:48 AM

Generally Welsh are shorter and more agressive than members of the human race.

In fairness I don't think it's been conclusively proved whether this is due to a genuine genetic difference or simply by an exclusive diet of leeks and coal.

andyandy

6th June 2006, 06:50 AM

Really? Check out Africa prior to 1960's and then to Africa since...

And... it's not as if we went around overthrowing democracies and flouting the soveriegnty of the local people. The indigenous despots may have lost their power (my heart bleeds for them), but the local Joe Average got the protection of the English Common Law (as opposed to having his life and property subject to autocratic fiat), and English concepts and institutions (civil service, seperate judiciary, parliaments) got introduced, which are a heck of an improvement over what was there before.

To avoid presented a less than balanced view; sometimes some local traditions - even religious ones - were supressed (Suttee, Thugee etc). Nowadays I guess we'd just have to respect those as equally valid...

it's not as if we went around flouting the soveriegnity of the local people.....

hmmmm....actually that's what we did do.....
English colonialisation was some well to do English types setting sail, landing on "undiscovered" territories - and claiming those lands for the Queen....:D

looking at Africa, Ok - how about looking at western africa, ever heard of the slave trade? I don't think that was especially beneficial to the local populace...
how about S Africa, Zimbabwe? Still suffering from a racial two tier society - a legacy of colonial rule.
China?
India?
Malaysia?
the West Indies?
Egypt?
Palestine?
British colonial rule was one of exploitation - the empire was there to provide wealth to Britain, not for altruistic purposes. Sure there was an idea of a "civilising mission" inspired by Christian ideals and an inherent white western racism, but this was by no means the driving force behind empire.
Sure, as a result of empire, there were some benefits to the local populace - but to suggest that this means that the indiginous populace were in fact "better off" under colonial rule betrays that same self-justifying white rascist paternal mindset of empire.....

rocketdodger

6th June 2006, 07:06 AM

British colonial rule was one of exploitation - the empire was there to provide wealth to Britain, not for altruistic purposes.

Indeed, and similar to how capitalism makes even the loosers better off, the very introduction of infrastructure and law, if only to insure the flow of riches back to Britain, brought these people out of the tribal dark ages they were in. If they were so much better off, why haven't they gone back since? Its not like its a hard thing to do, throwing away your televisions and air conditioners and rifles and knowldege of metalworking and... you get the idea.

Sure, as a result of empire, there were some benefits to the local populace - but to suggest that this means that the indiginous populace were in fact "better off" under colonial rule betrays that same self-justifying white rascist paternal mindset of empire.....

You would have to define "better off." My definition is in accordance with standard of living and objective wealth.

And I don't know why you would bring up the slave trade Andy, do you really know what happened there? It is more of a lesson in the savage nature of tribal africans than european-american oppression.

andyandy

6th June 2006, 07:45 AM

Indeed, and similar to how capitalism makes even the loosers better off, the very introduction of infrastructure and law, if only to insure the flow of riches back to Britain, brought these people out of the tribal dark ages they were in. If they were so much better off, why haven't they gone back since? Its not like its a hard thing to do, throwing away your televisions and air conditioners and rifles and knowldege of metalworking and... you get the idea.

You would have to define "better off." My definition is in accordance with standard of living and objective wealth.

And I don't know why you would bring up the slave trade Andy, do you really know what happened there? It is more of a lesson in the savage nature of tribal africans than european-american oppression.

China? - the opium wars devastated the country;

The Chinese Emperor had banned opium in China due to its harmful effects on Chinese citizens and its denigratory impact on the Chinese culture; The British Empire, however, saw opium as a profitable good for commercial trade, as its import would help balance the huge trade deficit with China. The Opium Wars and the many treaties signed afterward led in part to the downfall of the Chinese economy, as many countries followed Britain and forced more treaties to increase trade within China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

India? - the concept of the white man's burden did lead to some advancements in politics and education but at pretty devastating costs - the Bengal famine is a good example of how the needs of the populace were secondary to the desire for profits....

Fault for the famine is now often ascribed to the British East India Company policies in Bengal. As a trading body, its first remit was to maximise its profits and with taxation rights the profits to be obtained from Bengal came from land tax as well as trade tariffs. As lands came under company control, the land tax was typically raised by 3 to 4 times what it had been – from 10-15% up to 50% of the value of the agricultural produce. In the first years of the rule of the British East India Company, the total land tax income was doubled and most of this revenue flowed out of the country. As the famine approached its height, in April of 1770, the Company announced that land tax for the following year was to be increased by 10%.

The company is also criticised for forbidding the "hoarding" of rice. This prevented traders and dealers from laying in reserves that in other times would have tided the population over lean periods.

By the time of the famine, monopolies in grain trading had been established by the Company and its agents. The Company had no plan for dealing with the grain shortage, and actions were only taken insofar as they affected the mercantile and trading classes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770

There's a huge list.......i guess it does depend on how you define "better off" deoesnt it.....

and as for the slave trade, it was as a direct result of empire, to somehow claim that it was because of african savagery is absurd.
i guess you buy into the white-man's burden rascist paternal mindset of empire.....that's kind of depressing.....:(

Deus Ex Machina

6th June 2006, 07:55 AM

Maybe this is why the USA and England get along so well. Everyone hates you too.

Oderint Dum Metuant

Jocko

6th June 2006, 07:57 AM

Hey, it's a really nice toilet.

And it flushes counterclockwise, as God intended. ;)

rocketdodger

6th June 2006, 07:58 AM

i guess you buy into the white-man's burden rascist paternal mindset of empire.....that's kind of depressing.....:(

I don't claim that imperial colonies were better off back then. I am simply claiming that right now, most former colonies would certainly be in a better state of affairs if they were still colonies. Apart from the glaring examples of former colonies that are now first world countries, do you dispute this claim?

The fact is, before very recently, most of the world had its head up its arse, so citing history doesn't seem very productive to me. Of course the English were bastards to the Indians and Chinese, they were also bastards to themselves. Of course we in the USA raped the Native Americans, we were also owning slaves for god's sake. Before recently everyone was a clueless bastard, so why even talk about it.

Deus Ex Machina

6th June 2006, 07:59 AM

China? - the opium wars devastated the country;

Hardly. Would you care to cite some evidence for this? The opium trade, while nasty enough in its character could hardly penetrate the Chinese mainland. equally the opium wars were restricted to one small section of a huge country.

More devastating was the Taiping Rebellion.

and as for the slave trade, it was as a direct result of empire, to somehow claim that it was because of african savagery is absurd.
i guess you buy into the white-man's burden rascist paternal mindset of empire.....that's kind of depressing.....:(

Oh really? Slave trading had been going on for millenia. It was a well established practice in Africa - just like it had been in Europe - so how this now morphs to "direct result of empire" is a mystery.

andyandy

6th June 2006, 08:44 AM

Hardly. Would you care to cite some evidence for this? The opium trade, while nasty enough in its character could hardly penetrate the Chinese mainland. equally the opium wars were restricted to one small section of a huge country.

well, i guess we can quibble over "devastate" in regards to the economy - it was hugely detrimental to the Chinese economy both directly and indirectly. Directly through the massive shift in the trade balance,

[I]Britain and other European nations undertook the opium trade because of their chronic trade imbalance with China. There was tremendous demand in Europe for Chinese tea, silks, and porcelain pottery, but there was correspondingly little demand in China for Europe's manufactured goods and other trade items. Consequently, Europeans had to pay for Chinese products with gold or silver. The opium trade, which created a steady demand among Chinese addicts for opium imported by the West, solved this chronic trade imbalance. The amount of opium imported into China increased from around 200 chests a year in 1729 to about 1,000 chests in 1767 and to around 10,000 a year between 1820 and 1830. By 1838 the amount had grown to some 40,000 chests imported into China annually. The balance of payments for the first time began to run against China and in favour of Britain.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9105757

and indirectly perpetuating a severe long term drug problem (estimates vary but author of "The Opium Wars: The Addiction of One Empire and the Corruption of Another" puts the figure as high as 10% of the populace in 1949)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1402201494/ref=pd_sim_b_2/102-3480182-7804110?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155

Oh really? Slave trading had been going on for millenia. It was a well established practice in Africa - just like it had been in Europe - so how this now morphs to "direct result of empire" is a mystery.

well, i guess i should clarify - of course slavery is not an invention of empire - but my reference was to the slave trade - ie the trade in slaves from West Africa, to the New World perpetuated by the Colonial powers.... this trade was a direct result of empire - instigated by colonial powers, for the purpose of empire - it was a result of European rather than African "savagery"

andyandy

6th June 2006, 08:53 AM

I don't claim that imperial colonies were better off back then. I am simply claiming that right now, most former colonies would certainly be in a better state of affairs if they were still colonies. Apart from the glaring examples of former colonies that are now first world countries, do you dispute this claim?

The fact is, before very recently, most of the world had its head up its arse, so citing history doesn't seem very productive to me. Of course the English were bastards to the Indians and Chinese, they were also bastards to themselves. Of course we in the USA raped the Native Americans, we were also owning slaves for god's sake. Before recently everyone was a clueless bastard, so why even talk about it.

:confused:

your quote was;

Except that apart from a few rare cases (my country being one of them), most nations were better off under colonial rule.

and now you say;

I don't claim that imperial colonies were better off back then.

hmmm.....these goalposts seem to be shifting :D

your new post takes the topic to a completely different area....

If you're asking whether or not Britain could do a better job of running, say Zimbabwe, than Robert Mugabwe....well it would be hard to disagree with that...

Deus Ex Machina

6th June 2006, 09:23 AM

If you're asking whether or not Britain could do a better job of running, say Zimbabwe, than Robert Mugabwe....well it would be hard to disagree with that...

I think the Ronald McDonald could do a better job than Mugabe. But that is not an endorsement for McDonalds runing the world...

Giz

6th June 2006, 10:13 AM

it's not as if we went around flouting the soveriegnity of the local people.....

hmmmm....actually that's what we did do.....
English colonialisation was some well to do English types setting sail, landing on "undiscovered" territories - and claiming those lands for the Queen....:D

looking at Africa, Ok - how about looking at western africa, ever heard of the slave trade? I don't think that was especially beneficial to the local populace...
how about S Africa, Zimbabwe? Still suffering from a racial two tier society - a legacy of colonial rule.
China?
India?
Malaysia?
the West Indies?
Egypt?
Palestine?
British colonial rule was one of exploitation - the empire was there to provide wealth to Britain, not for altruistic purposes. Sure there was an idea of a "civilising mission" inspired by Christian ideals and an inherent white western racism, but this was by no means the driving force behind empire.
Sure, as a result of empire, there were some benefits to the local populace - but to suggest that this means that the indiginous populace were in fact "better off" under colonial rule betrays that same self-justifying white rascist paternal mindset of empire.....

Firstly, we did not flout the sovereignty of the local people ... because they didn't have any - they were ruled by dictators. The locals actually had more rights/protection under British rule than they had before.

As for the slave trade... yes it was a stain on the British Empire's history. However:
1) African Slaves were generally captives taken in inter tribal wars, they would either have been killed or enslaved in Africa if there was no transatlantic shipping available (and even without britain there were plenty other countries doing it), hardly an improvement.
2) Slavery is something that - historically - almost every culture has practised (heard of the million Europeans enslaved by the Moors between 1500 - 1700?). The British Empire however was the first to ban it (ignoring the French, "banned"... 6 months pass... "reinstated"), and then vigorously stamped out the trade (almost to the point of going to war). No other country did as much, or as soon.

If it helps understand where I am coming from: I think that the Romans coming to Britain was on the whole a good thing (improved governance, law, infrastructure, scientific advancement etc).

That I think that in some cases the British Empire provided similar benefits does not mean I hold a "self-justifying white rascist paternal mindset", it just means that I don't hold a superficial understanding of world history combined with shallow knee jerk left wing assumptions.

rocketdodger

6th June 2006, 11:49 AM

hmmm.....these goalposts seem to be shifting :D

your new post takes the topic to a completely different area....

No they aren't shifting I just worded it wrong the first time.

andyandy

6th June 2006, 12:00 PM

Firstly, we did not flout the sovereignty of the local people ... because they didn't have any - they were ruled by dictators. The locals actually had more rights/protection under British rule than they had before.

explain how landing in a foreign land and claiming it for your own country isn't flouting the soverignty of the local people....:D

"they were ruled by dictators" is far too simplistic a justification - it varies greatly from country to country, region to region. But it's not as if colonial rule was about spreading democracy anyway - it was about overthrowing local rulers and establishing a colonial regime - dictatorship by another name.

As for the slave trade... yes it was a stain on the British Empire's history. However:
1) African Slaves were generally captives taken in inter tribal wars, they would either have been killed or enslaved in Africa if there was no transatlantic shipping available (and even without britain there were plenty other countries doing it), hardly an improvement.

britain's empire vastly, vastly increased the demand for slaves - so to argue that "they would have been slaves anyway" is ludicrious.

Slavery is something that - historically - almost every culture has practised (heard of the million Europeans enslaved by the Moors between 1500 - 1700?). The British Empire however was the first to ban it (ignoring the French, "banned"... 6 months pass... "reinstated"), and then vigorously stamped out the trade (almost to the point of going to war). No other country did as much, or as soon.

The initial post with which i took exception was one which implied that the former colonies should be greatful for British colonial rule. You're arguing that because Britain banned the slave trade (but carried on with it anyway) those affected by slavery should have been greatful. The wealth of the empire was built on the back of the slave trade - estimates vary but around 2 million africans are thought to have been taken to the west indies from 1600-1800 by Britain. To imply as you seem to, that Britain has a virtuous slave trading past when compared to other nations is a poor justification for its involvement.

It is estimated that during the 4 1/2 centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, Portugal was responsible for transporting over 4.5 million Africans (roughly 40% of the total). During the eighteenth century however, when the slave trade accounted for the transport of a staggering 6 million Africans, Britain was the worst transgressor - responsible for almost 2.5 million. (A fact often forgotten by those who regularly cite Britain's prime role in the abolition of the slave trade.)
http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa080601a.htm

If it helps understand where I am coming from: I think that the Romans coming to Britain was on the whole a good thing (improved governance, law, infrastructure, scientific advancement etc).

That I think that in some cases the British Empire provided similar benefits does not mean I hold a "self-justifying white rascist paternal mindset", it just means that I don't hold a superficial understanding of world history combined with shallow knee jerk left wing assumptions.

hmmm....well it seems like you pretty superficial understanding of world history to me if you believe that the British Empire was something to be proud of. It's interesting you bring up "left wing" - i'm arguing as a historian not from any political stand-point. I'm just looking at the evidence and making an objective assertion....maybe you should do the same :D

EDIT
sorry this has kinda derailed the OP....any more posts on it and I'll start a new thread.....:)

The Painter

6th June 2006, 05:24 PM

Having to queue up for baseball tickets...No free cable, it must be hell.

My brothers and I have season tickets for the Mets. I get free cable. My wife works for Cablevision. Free cable, free internet (very high speed broadband), and free phone. You can’t beat that with a stick.

Major Billy

7th June 2006, 08:01 AM

Please tell me this is a joke...England afraid to fly its own flagIt would be "absurd" not to fly the flag.http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1792217,00.html

Jaggy Bunnet

7th June 2006, 08:12 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1792217,00.html

As one of those people who are meant to be offended by somebody flying an English flag in England in support of the English team, can I just apologise.

I have tried very, very hard to get worked up about it. I had hoped the media would help by whipping me into a frenzy and that millions of jobsworths all over England would assist by arresting those putting the flags up. I had even hoped that some of those I spend a large part of my holidays travelling with to watch Scotland play would assist by allowing me to join in their sense of outrage to enable us to collectively be more outraged than we could achieve on our own.

However, sadly, I must report that I really don't care. I am no more outraged by the English flying flags than I am by the Germans or the Togans (sp?) doing the same thing. I am very, very sorry for spoiling the story.

Darat

7th June 2006, 08:37 AM

As one of those people who are meant to be offended by somebody flying an English flag in England in support of the English team, can I just apologise.

...smip...However, sadly, I must report that I really don't care. I am no more outraged by the English flying flags than I am by the Germans or the Togans (sp?) doing the same thing. I am very, very sorry for spoiling the story.

Pah typical - where's your spirit?!

I'm sure you can goad yourself into a foaming spittle spewing outburst if you try - doesn't Richard Littlejohn have a pod cast you could listen to?

Jon_in_london

7th June 2006, 03:10 PM

In fairness I don't think it's been conclusively proved whether this is due to a genuine genetic difference or simply by an exclusive diet of leeks and coal.

Its because they havent quite evolved from Coalus minorus yet. C. minorus are a very short species as this enables them to fit in coal mines to graze.

/racism.

Jaggy Bunnet

7th June 2006, 03:31 PM

Pah typical - where's your spirit?!

I'm sure you can goad yourself into a foaming spittle spewing outburst if you try - doesn't Richard Littlejohn have a pod cast you could listen to?

I did try, honestly!

I might spew if I listened to Richard Littlejohn, but probably not from outrage. The very thought makes me queasy.

Major Billy

21st June 2006, 07:56 AM

Press Association
Wednesday June 21, 2006 3:28 PM

Safari park bosses warned visitors to remove England flags from their cars after a group of baboons began stealing them.

The animals have built up a huge collection of flags in the monkey enclosure at Knowsley safari park in Merseyside.

Keepers at the park say the 120-strong troop of baboons have been known to help themselves to windscreen wipers but have now turned their attentions to the World Cup flags.

Safari Park general manager David Ross said: "Many people are wisely removing the flags before they set off on the safari drive.

However, if they forget the baboons usually take them and they've now built up quite a collection. If you think about it, this is hardly surprising. All the baboons were born here on Merseyside so they are probably just as football mad as everyone else in the area."http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5901839,00.html