15
   

what are the reasons why england conquered many countries?

 
 
Builder
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2015 04:48 am
Only a classist arsehole could be proud of this kind of history. yaswas.

Quote:
Impressment was a long standing authority from the state for the recruitment to military service, either on land or on sea. The impress service, or more commonly called the press gang, was employed to seize men for employment at sea in British seaports. Impressment was used as far back as Elizabethan times when this form of recruitment became a statute and later the Vagrancy Act 1597, men of disrepute (usually homeless vagrants) could be drafted into service. In 1703, an act limited the seizure of men for naval service to those under 18, although apprentices were exempt from being pressed. In 1740, the age was raised to 55. Officially, no foreigner could be impressed although they were able to volunteer. If, however, the foreigner married a British woman, or had worked on a British merchant ship for two years, their protection was lost and they could be impressed. However, these limits were often ignored and the impressment of Americans into the British navy became one of the causes of the American War of 1812.

Once a man had been seized by the press gang, he was offered a choice. He could either sign up as a volunteer and receive the benefits that came with being a volunteer (advance payment etc.) or he could remain a pressed man and receive nothing. Some governments issued "Protections" against impressment, including Britain. These were mainly issued by the Admiralty and Trinity House for specific types of employment. These protections had to be carried at all times and shown to the press gang on demand to prevent the holder being impressed. However, in times of crisis, even the protections became invalid. The order "press from all protections" - known as the "hot press" meant that no person was exempt from impressment.


We can look at the enslavement of children, and the gross paedophile rackets, when you finish digesting this lot.
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2015 05:04 am
@Builder,
Or you could look at the disgraceful way the aborigines were, (and still are) treated by the Australians.

Quote:
Despite the substantial increase in the population of Aborigines since 1911, the conditions of life in which they find themselves remain impoverished and highly oppressive. Tatz states that according to every social indicator available Aborigines are found at the top or bottom. Diseases, such as coronary disease, cancer, diabetes, and respiratory infections, are far more prevalent than 30 years earlier. Life expectancy is 50-55 years for males, approximately 55 years for females. The likelihood of an Aborigine being unemployed is far greater—22.7 percent as opposed to 8.1 percent. Fewer Aborigines own their homes. For Aborigines fortunate enough to have employment, their income is 25 percent less on average. Large proportions of Aborigines languish in prisons (14 percent of the prison population in 1997) and police watch-houses. This excludes those confined, through economic necessity, to black settlements, like Cherbourg or Yarrabah in Queensland.

The oppressed condition of Aborigines is marked in other ways—a prevalence of personal violence, lack of care for children, increased death from non-natural causes, as well as high levels of alcohol and drug abuse. It should come as no surprise that one manifestation of oppression—alcohol and drug abuse—is commonly offered as the explanation for all manifestations of oppression.



http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/09/geno-s07.html<br /> <br />At least ours is history, yours is ongoing. Lordy never expressed pride in history, that came from you.
Builder
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2015 05:17 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Or you could look at the disgraceful way the aborigines were, (and still are) treated by the Australians.


Under colonial law, they weren't considered human, Izzy. Pretty-much the same attitude spread by the Brit colonists, wherever they landed. India took a while to arsehole them. America kind of came to a truce agreement. Ireland will remember forever, I'm thinking. Canada? Not sure.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2015 05:29 am
@Builder,
Still going on today. Why not take some responsibility for what you're doing today, instead of your lazy racist attitude in trying to blame everyone else? All of your posts to Lordy are based on bigotry. We get it, you hate us. Just don't try to wrap up your racism and bigotry as something noble, that's the worst form of hypocrisy.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  5  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2015 05:39 am
@Builder,
You're making this **** up as you go along--i suspect you're just parroting popular points of view you've heard all of your life, without actually being able to provide a source for your claims. It is absolute bullshit that aboriginal inhabitants of Australia were not considered human by law. I suggest you read The Fatal Shore again, if you've not read it lately. Government policy was to accord the same legal rights to aboriginal people as to whites--it was the settlers and the ticket of leave men who flouted those laws and brought on incidents such as Myall Creek.

You can't reasonably characterize centuries of history in a few quick phrases with any topic so complex as racial relations. The settlers in Virginia were attacked as early as 1621, and organized for their self-defense. In Massachusetts, however, the good, godly men decided that the aboriginals were limbs of Satan, and could be slaughtered out of hand. A good deal of the resentment against George III in America after 1760 was the attempt by government to protect native lands by prohibiting settlers from crossing the Appalachian mountains.

Europeans first reached India (that we know of) in 1498. Portuguese, Dutch and French expeditions all set up enclaves there before the Brits arrived. Taking over the country was a long, slow process which lasted for nearly two centuries, and often involved taking sides in local conflicts. In fact, that was a problem throughout the world, throughout the centuries. Magellan was killed (from his own stupidity) while taking sides in a native conflict in what we now call the Philippines. Champlain took sides between the Iroquois and the Ottawa in 1608, and brought on 150 years of relentless, inveterate warfare between the Iroquois Confederacy and the French.

Not to put too fine a point on it, you've just been peddling bullshit here.
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2015 05:52 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Not to put too fine a point on it, you've just been peddling bullshit here.


Not just here.

http://able2know.org/topic/264206-10#post-5860141

http://able2know.org/topic/47327-1122#post-5856850

Anyone who's chummy with Quehoniaomath isn't someone who should be taken seriously.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2015 06:03 am
Aaah, the dogpile effect. Knock yourselves out, fellas.

I've worked extensively with our indigenous bretheren in four states of this nation. Not theirs, of course.

Pretending that you're on the god's team is nice for the class photos, folks, but it certainly isn't historically accurate. Dream on.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2015 06:16 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Taking over the country was a long, slow process which lasted for nearly two centuries, and often involved taking sides in local conflicts. In fact, that was a problem throughout the world, throughout the centuries.
And often enough, those "conquerors" didn't succeed.
Looking at the failed German colonies (the Welser colony ['Little Venice'] in Venezuela, the Brandenburg colony St. Thomas and the one of the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia in Tobago, the Brandenburger (later Prussian) Gold Coast ...

They weren't seafaring nations. And because England was one, the British "conquered many countries".
Builder
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2015 06:32 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
They weren't seafaring nations. And because England was one, the British "conquered many countries".


Press-ganging crew is slavery. Get the history right, at least. Flogging women is torture. Stealing children for any reason is inhumane.

Still doing the same ole shite, and wondering why the result isn't different.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2015 06:50 am
@Walter Hinteler,
There's no denying that the growth of the Royal Navy under the restored Stuart monarchy played a crucial role. Policy mattered, too, though. Neither Louis XIV nor his successors really understood and exploited their navy as it could have been done, and even the English admitted that no one designed and built ships as well as the French. Even more incomprehensible, though, was the policy of the United Provinces in the Anglo-Dutch wars. James, Duke of York, assembled most of the Navy off the North Foreland, and there confronted the Dutch. He was obliged to split his fleet, sending 20 capital ships to observe the French (half-hearted allies of the Dutch, at best) and retaining somewhat more than 100 to operate against the Dutch. This served two purposes apart from confronting the Dutch warships. First, it protected the Baltic trade, which was not only crucial to the English economy, but particularly to the Navy, as so many of their stores came from the Baltic. It also strangled the Dutch trade. Even though the Dutch government was in the hands of merchants, they seemed not to understand the best interests to be served by their navy.

Throughout the succeeding 250 years, Royal Navy operational policy was devoted to protecting British trade, and, when and where possible, cutting off the trade of her enemies. Slowly, the British built up an empire by establishing naval bases around the world to service the Navy, the entire purpose of which was to protect British trade. That was the "genius" of their policy. (cf. The Influence of Sea Power upon History, A. T. Mahan, Little Brown and Company, Boston, 1890, for a detailed discussion of these policies by the most influential writer on naval matters anywhere).
0 Replies
 
Lordyaswas
 
  5  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2015 07:48 am
@Builder,
"Only a classist arsehole could be proud of this kind of history. yaswas. "

I see I have to repeat myself, idiot.

I'll write this slowly so that even you can understand, OK?

Where..... did ......I ...... once .......intimate ....... that ....... I ....... was ....... in .....the .......slightest ....... bit ........ proud ....... in .......my .......previous ...... posts ........ on ........this ........ thread?

I was stating fact.

The subject of the thread was all about conquering. I stated that we were not the only Europeans at it, back then.

I made the observation that we happened to be better at it for a while.

The fact that pointed me in that direction was that Britain grew to be in control of the biggest empire the world has ever seen.

You jumped in with a one word "bullshit" reply, and then came out with a silly ROFL comeback when I pointed you to an evidential source.

OK, tell me how I was wrong, and supply what you consider to be evidence to back it up.

If this was a thread asking my views regarding the British Empire, you would have had every right to challenge me if I said that it was the best thing that ever happened to the world.

But it wasn't. It was a simple question asked as per the thread title, and people (especially Set) answered it in very good detail.

Carlos the troll jumped in after all that effort and just blindly stated that it was because of arrogance, and I challemged him on that.

You obviously have an axe to grind against the British and were rude in tesponse.

It is therefore not now my fault that you have failed to extradite yourself from this, and now look more silly than when you started.


I repeat. Not once did I express my views or feelings about the good, bad or indifferent points regarding the British Empire.
Builder
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2015 07:50 am
@Lordyaswas,
Quote:
I repeat. Not once did I express my views or feelings about the good, bad or indifferent points regarding the British Empire.


Such a cad.
Lordyaswas
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2015 07:52 am
@Builder,
Such a child.

A reasonable adult would have realised that they were totally out of order and possibly apologised.
0 Replies
 
saab
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2015 08:13 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I am curious when the Brandenburg colony St. Thomas existed. I have never heard about it - only that it belonged to Denmark
Denmark got St. Thomas 1670 and had it until 1917 when it was sold to USA.
In 1685, the Brandenburgisch-Africanische Compagnie took control of the slave trade on Saint Thomas, and for some time the largest slave auctions in the world were held there. That does not mean it was a colony onlzy that they were trading.
Builder
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2015 08:18 am
@saab,
The southern ocean wasn't a stranger to all the seafaring nations.
0 Replies
 
Lordyaswas
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2015 08:25 am
@Lordyaswas,
Oops.

Extradite should read extricate. Sorry.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2015 08:51 am
@saab,
It wasn't a colony, you're correct.
But they didn't only trade there: the land was rented from Denmark, the Companie had a Governor there, who was a Brandenburg civil servant, and - among others - they established a kind of court system.
All that was ratified in/by Denmark. (1688 and following.)
In a couple of 'oktroys', Frederick III gave the same rights to people there as those in the African colonies had gotten. [These rights weren't rights for native inhabitants.]
But it wasn't officially a Brandenburg colony.
saab
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2015 09:08 am
@Walter Hinteler,
The Danes still talk about the Dansk Vestindiske Øer and travel agencies have ads about trips to Dansk Vestindiske Øer St. Croix, St. Thomas and St. John - and that after almost 100 years.
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  3  
Reply Mon 26 Jan, 2015 07:16 pm
@Lordyaswas,
I don't think that Builder's command of the English language is all that it could be, Lordy. Like you, I was surprised at his "bullshit" response to your post which was no more than a statement of fact with no value judgement implied.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jan, 2015 07:37 pm
@FBM,
I like that phrase, nurture them along - without the insults..
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.67 seconds on 08/04/2020 at 11:29:02