“Why We Hate the British”


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I too, have positive experiences in working with German - and other - European people. However, perhaps the most significant event that I have ever experienced was in Israel in the 1970s when we were

There are times when I'm ashamed to be ENGLISH, such as when they refuse to eat "foreign muck", or when they complain that foreigners don't speak English, or much of the xenophobia we are seeing at th

As many of you know, my mrs and step son are Russian. The news companies from both UK and Russia are very heavily biased in their reporting. The neo-fascist firms attached to the football clubs, m

As many of you know, my mrs and step son are Russian.

The news companies from both UK and Russia are very heavily biased in their reporting.

The neo-fascist firms attached to the football clubs, mainly Spartak and Lokomotiv Moscow have been known for years. There is a branch of the Russian police known as OMON. They are the hard guys and some of my family are in OMON. They describe many battles around the football stadia. So football violence is not a new thing. Nor are the gangs unknown. How do you stop them? Difficult but it is certain that the Russian gangs will not have a nice time when they get back to Russia. Russia has a way of sorting its own people out. It always has.

One very real point is why the Russian gangs attacked the Brits? Simple. They knew that the Brits would fight back. Not many fans from other countries would. The England lot were targeted. I'm not in the slightest proud of England fans responding as they did. I can understand it and undoubtedly some of the England fans didnt fight the Russians they just went berserk in an area of Marseilles which was not under much threat.

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was in America an American said to me "the thing about England is it hasn't been a victim country since 1066. Most other European countries have been victims of invasion & occupation, & many of them bailed out by the Brits. In other parts of the world most countries have been colonised, either by Brits or some other European country, & a lot of countries have lost wars to Brits. Brits as a rule of thumb doesn't lose wars." Is this why some hate us? They're jealous of our past???

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

A victim country? Not quite. We got bombed quite heavily in the last unpleasantness. Many thousands died.

As a rule, we dont lose wars because of the deep tradition of our military, and that when we mean to bring on war, we dont mess about. Falklands was judged to be an unwinnable war.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone else noticed that the article in the OP is over 10 years old?

Just sayin'..

Col

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: # 31. We have been neither invaded, nor had a serious/lasting revolution for about a thousand years, and in that sense have not been a 'victim' country, although many certanly suffered and/or died due to bombing during WWII.

IME, this is why we still have a class system. Most of Europe's class system was swept away by revolution or invasion between 1789 and 1945. Ours wasn't and whilst it's true that the old aristocracy are pretty powerless and largely broke, we are still too fond of showing deference to anyone with loads of dosh. It's all very sad.

Col

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Those Krauts can hate us as much as they like. But remember that WE won them in TWO world wars & the 1966 World Cup Final !

I remember that day well as a spotty faced youth visiting Hyson Green at the time.

Going to see the Occupational nurse later this morning & then off to town, when I finally arrive home via the Lime Kiln I will switch my 55" box on & on loud volume I will watch the new film "Bobby" ! The story of the 1966 final hellothere

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4606514/

Sod the Krauts, today anyway !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

# 34 DJ360.

Deference is one thing I really hated about the Army: having to kow-tow to upper class twit hooray Henry officers. To get us to help in officers mess dues they had to pay us 3 days pay, & if us 'other ranks' acted like they did we'd have been charged & court marshaled pronto. They got away with murder because they were officers & upper class..

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH Colly, I've been thoroughly inebriated in several RAF officers mess's when I was on 'familiarisation' visits from the Careers Service. Always found them to be pretty decent sorts for the most part. But then again, we were sort of treated as nominal 'officers' for the duration of our stay.

Never been in an Army Officer's Mess.

But I did work for a while in a Chef and Brewer pub close to Sandhurst., which led to an interesting incident. One night a couple of lads came in saying they were officer cadets from Sandhurst due to pass out shortly and could they take over one of the rooms with their mates to celebrate. I referred them to the manager and all was agreed.

They al turned up and got thoroughly pissed. Most of them dispersed at closing time but one idiot decided that he not only wanted more drink, but was entitled to it.

He went wittering on about how his Mummy was a JP and he could get an extended license any time. The Assistant Manager, himself ex- Army told him in short order to 'go away', but not before wheedling his name out of him. Next day he called Sandhurst and made a complaint. Bet that went down well. Another one of them cashed a cheque over the bar. It bounced. Same manager knew the form and was straight on the phone to Sandhurst to the Bursar's office. Was assured the cheque would be honoured immediately and the Cadet concerned would be on a charge.

Served 'em right.

Manners and decent conduct cost nothing.

Col

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am changing the subject a little, yes! I'm English, British, European.

what I can't stand is us English/British who make comments like !!!! I don't like the French/German/Turks etc!!!! and have never left the shores of the UK

When we lived in South Africa we used to go over to the Park Hotel for a drink and there was Brits /Germans/ Australians/ Swedish / French and we all got along. Even after a few pints.

I suppose its human nature the human race will never get on with each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's not Mary. Contrary to popular opinion, I think most people have no qualms about integrating.

It's the leaders and the politicians of various countries that are the problem.

Just look at Putin, the leader of Syria and this idiot in North Korea for starters.

The old cloth capped image of a Brit decrying foreign food or Asian bus drivers has long gone thank goodness.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you on that, Fly.

Its been my observation over many years that the average working guy in any country just wants to make a decent home for his family and get along with folks. He doesn't want to invade or fight with any other nation.

I worked with quite a lot of Germans in my working years in Canada. They were hard working and friendly towards us. It is too bad that so many fine young men on both sides had to die. For what? The folks that make money financing and egging on both sides in a dispute seem to come out the winners every time, while the media are telling us how bad the other guys are.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've studied the American Civil War, as being a great fan of westerns, I seemed always to side with the Confederates and the Southern way of living. In later years, the media of all genres has filled our heads with propaganda about the South being full of rich racist plantation owners who kept slaves, and the Northeners as philanthropic abolitionists.

Absolute twaddle. I've read many books and publications on the subject and it transpires the the North freed many slaves on the promise of freedom, when in fact they were drafted into their own regiments in the the Union army and sent to the bloodiest battles before any white regiments. Many were promised a good life away from farm work, but were forced into the munitions factories of the North. Freedom my ar5e.

The industrialists and the generals had a lot to answer for.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I too, have positive experiences in working with German - and other - European people. However, perhaps the most significant event that I have ever experienced was in Israel in the 1970s when we were invited to a Passsover meal by some Israeli colleagues. When we arrived, I was surprised to see that a number of German students had also been invited. The meal had religious and historic significance for our hosts and I and other members of my party, were a little apprehensive regarding how the evening would progress. However, there was no need for anxiety. An elderly Israeli man (whom I learned later, was the host's uncle who had lost close relatives in the holocaust), welcomed us all to their celebration and smiled whilst the guests joined in the singing and dancing. Whilst we were sitting together, I asked him how he, who possibly had more reason than any of us to be resentful of German people, could be so welcoming. His reply was humbling: he said that the young people had done nothing to him or his family and that although he had hated the perpetrators, 'living in hatred is a waste of life' and that if he continued hating would become like the Nazis who, 'never learned that we are all human beings and that a religion, a skin colour, or a nationality doesn't make someone a lesser person.'

  • Upvote 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, not all Germans were Nazis, just as not all England supporters are hooligans.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the U S civil war. I have lived here in Georgia for 14 years now. If you listen you still hear undercurrents of resentment for northerners. (Yankees). I used to think all Americans were 'Yanks' having grown up in Nottingham hearing that word. Don't call a Southerner a Yank. Lol. (They seem to have forgiven the Brits for the revolutionary war). :-). I celebrate July 4th too but I tell 'em I'm doing it under protest. They don't seem to mind.

I do not believe that the civil war was about slavery / race. Northerners held slaves too. I'm more inclined to think it was economic. The South was becoming wealthy. Many in the North resented that.

Many Southern towns were burnt to the ground, including Atlanta. Some have never really recovered. Once again many thousands were killed on both side. I wonder who profited from that one. It wasn't the South I can tell you that. Economically this is still one of the poorer areas of the US.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Colly0410

I was an officer and I assure you that I was no hooray Henry. I am from Hyson Green!.

I almost always asked my soldiers to do what I wanted, rather than ordered. I always counselled the NCOs for ther views. Sometimes I admit I did go against their advice, but I considered myself to be the decision maker in the team. Anyone could have input but the decisions were mine and I held complete responsibility for it.

I led many really good teams who were well disciplined and efficient soldiers. Some of whom could not be bettered. It was an honour to command them. I remain to this day immensely proud of the times when the NCOs said" The Boss wants this. Get on with it"

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said Rhett Butler......and frankly my dear he did'nt give a damn as Atlanta burn't........poor Scarlet i loved her............lol.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I too have studied the War between the States, I call it that because it was not a Civil War as were the English and the Spanish conflicts. They were wars about the system of government the people wished to live under, the American war was more struggle for the independence for the Confederate States.

The negro regiments of the North were segregated unlike those who fought for the South where thousands of negros fought alongside the white soldiers. This fact has been suppressed by many historians as it does not fit into the official history that the war was about slavery. Slavery would have ended peacefully but for the political ambition of Lincoln.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is certainly too simplistic to argue that the rise of abolitionism was the sole cause of the American Civil War. However, it is difficult to see how slave-owners could not be defined as ‘racist’ and dismissed as propaganda. The ‘Cornerstone’ speech delivered by the Vice President of the Confederacy sets out the Confederate position:

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.’

This was not a class issue, but one wholly of racial superiority as a ‘natural law’:

Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws.’

Slavery might have ‘ended peacefully’ had the states not gone to war but given the views espoused by the government of the South, progress towards full emancipation for black people would certainly have been even slower than the snail’s pace that followed the formal ending of the war in1866.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most your post barrettkeller. The Confederate government certainly represented the interests of the 'plantocracy' far too much. and this led to many bad decisions, for example refusing to exchange captured Union soldiers who were exslaves, also the refusal to promote the non slaveholding Anglo/Irish immigrant who was the most successful major general in the western theatre and continue with the ineffectual Braxton Bragg and later Hardee.

To understand the origins of the war one should read about the Bloody Kansas and the Kansas Nebraska Act, also the antipathy between the North and South going back eighty years before the war.

The South was responsible for over three quarters of American exports before the war, tobacco, cotton, turpentine, timber, rice, sugar and other primary produce. The north had many large factories and smaller farms, they were self sustaining in food but dependent on the south for many raw materials and naturally wanted control of these raw materials.

The treatment of slaves varied from barbaric to paternalistic, even ignoring the abolitionists dubious propaganda, there are horror stories of, for example the Texas planter who cut off the hands of a slave who had learnt to write. On the other hand the much maligned Gen N. B. Forrest took hundreds of his slaves off to war as (armed) teamsters and freed the lot after three years service, the vast majority of them continued to fight for the south. another fact that is seldom mentioned.

Most Confederate were not slave holders, Robert E. Lee had no slaves, he fought for Virginia not slavery The war and the later reconstruction bought misery to the south white and black, and also great wealth to the northern carpet-baggers. I believe the war was unnecessary, it was brought about by Lincoln's political ambition, and the southern ''firebrands' response.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not take issue with with your comments about the origins Civil War and its aftermath. However, the statement that most Confederates were not slave holders does not give the full picture of the significance of the place of slavery in the lives of those serving in the army.

Glatthaar, who cross-indexed the Confederate muster list with the 1860 census, found that:

‘One in every ten volunteers in 1861 did not own slaves themselves but lived in households headed by non family members who did. This figure, combined with the 36 percent who owned or whose family members owned slaves, indicated that almost one of every two 1861 recruits lived with slaveholders. Nor did the direct exposure stop there. Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery.’

My point was simply that although there may have been many examples of benevolence towards slaves, or that some black people became slave holders themselves, the concept that,the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition’ is abhorrent and was - and continues to be - rightly opposed.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...