Labour's missing £1bn in foreign aid

[-:Undertaker:-]

Not by hi-jacking somebodies thread.

A nationalist political party would be one that shows patriotism and would sacrifice everything for Britain, much like the Nazi Party of Germany.
The term nationalist would describe patriotism and dedication towards your homeland, and socialism would be much like "British jobs for British workers" or by using our own resources such as steel rather go looking abroad for it.
A national socialist party would work wonders for this country IF it was done correctly and did not follow the paths of the NSDAP of Germany.
Unfortunately, at the moment there is no existing National Socialist party in the UK that doesn't link its self to racist skinhead thugs.

George Orwell argued (and I agree with this notion) that nationalism was different from patriotism, nationalism is the desire to impose your way of life on other nations (a strand of imperialism) whereas patriotism is a sense of pride in your country and not wanting to impose it on others along with realising the differences between nations.

Now historically i'm a nationalist - if you placed me back in 1700 I would argue the case for Empire and I do believe that overall the British Empire was a force for good, much more so than its European rivals which more so took wealth and never reinvested it whereas we did (its testiment the large number of colonial buildings that stand in former British colonies compared to French/Belgian colonies). But in the modern age, i'm a patriot - and afterall with the EU, we are fighting nationalism as that political class wishes to create an identity and force it upon the nations of Europe.

Just thought i'd add that anyway, Orwell is very interesting as is idealogy in general; apologies for spelling mistakes though, very tired.

[HotelUser]

Not by hi-jacking somebodies thread.

A nationalist political party would be one that shows patriotism and would sacrifice everything for Britain, much like the Nazi Party of Germany.
The term nationalist would describe patriotism and dedication towards your homeland, and socialism would be much like "British jobs for British workers" or by using our own resources such as steel rather go looking abroad for it.
A national socialist party would work wonders for this country IF it was done correctly and did not follow the paths of the NSDAP of Germany.
Unfortunately, at the moment there is no existing National Socialist party in the UK that doesn't link its self to racist skinhead thugs.

A Nationalist party would be a ****** 20th century decision which would spiral the world back in time into a ****** political and unconstructive mess where self pride prevails over valuing the life of those around us.

Sources: Please see Holocaust.

George Orwell argued (and I agree with this notion) that nationalism was different from patriotism, nationalism is the desire to impose your way of life on other nations (a strand of imperialism) whereas patriotism is a sense of pride in your country and not wanting to impose it on others along with realising the differences between nations.

Now historically i'm a nationalist - if you placed me back in 1700 I would argue the case for Empire and I do believe that overall the British Empire was a force for good, much more so than its European rivals which more so took wealth and never reinvested it whereas we did (its testiment the large number of colonial buildings that stand in former British colonies compared to French/Belgian colonies). But in the modern age, i'm a patriot - and afterall with the EU, we are fighting nationalism as that political class wishes to create an identity and force it upon the nations of Europe.

Just thought i'd add that anyway, Orwell is very interesting as is idealogy in general; apologies for spelling mistakes though, very tired.

Wrong. Please see modern day Africa, and here.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Wrong. Please see modern day Africa, and here.

Yes indeed, modern day Africa - which is a mess. I'm not sure whether you are aware of this, but Britain no longer owns or controls any colonies in Africa and its demise seemed to co-incide with the time that Britain left Africa with the demise of Rhodesia in particular. Africa is reverting back to the tribal land it always has been, something the British tried (and ultimately failed) so quash out of them.

As for the Americas, the disease was not a genocide as it was mainly accidental with only a few random cases of deliberate killing using disease. I myself have said bad things went on, such as what can only be described as a massacre in the British Raj (India) by General Dyer on innocent people.

But look at Amazon tribes now (and they are horrific), you can watch videos of buried alive children where this practise still continues. They remain backward, and yet your logic (in terms of Iraq/Afghanistan) was to intervene - so why not intervene in this brutal killing also just as the British did many years ago? the British actually treated the red Indians far better than the Americans for example, we sectioned large reserves for the remaining tribes and when we lost control of the 13 colonies many Indian tribes migrated northwards into British North America (modern day Canada) which was still under the rule of Britain.

I'd like to know where Africa/Asia would be without the British infastructure they still depend on along with the advancements that the British brought about in terms of battling tropical diseases and birth deaths - not in a good place I can gurantee, far worse than they are now.

Many academics have heavily refuted the argument that the spread of disease was intentional.

The spread of disease was tragic, but not intentional - we did not spread it in order to wipe out the native tribes as your history teacher has most likely taught you taking a totally anti-British viewpoint on this topic. In a few cases, yes - you do have evil/intentional genocide but not overall.

[Catzsy]

Not by hi-jacking somebodies thread.

A nationalist political party would be one that shows patriotism and would sacrifice everything for Britain, much like the Nazi Party of Germany.
The term nationalist would describe patriotism and dedication towards your homeland, and socialism would be much like "British jobs for British workers" or by using our own resources such as steel rather go looking abroad for it.
A national socialist party would work wonders for this country IF it was done correctly and did not follow the paths of the NSDAP of Germany.
Unfortunately, at the moment there is no existing National Socialist party in the UK that doesn't link its self to racist skinhead thugs.

Well it's not hijacking the thread as points lead to other points. You still haven't made yourself clear as to how it would operate and what implications it would have for All the citizens of this country. Would have an example say of a party manifesto that you admire. Dan I haven't forgotten your post. Just need to find some time to reply.

[HotelUser]

Yes indeed, modern day Africa - which is a mess. I'm not sure whether you are aware of this, but Britain no longer owns or controls any colonies in Africa and its demise seemed to co-incide with the time that Britain left Africa with the demise of Rhodesia in particular. Africa is reverting back to the tribal land it always has been, something the British tried (and ultimately failed) so quash out of them.

As for the Americas, the disease was not a genocide as it was mainly accidental with only a few random cases of deliberate killing using disease. I myself have said bad things went on, such as what can only be described as a massacre in the British Raj (India) by General Dyer on innocent people.

But look at Amazon tribes now (and they are horrific), you can watch videos of buried alive children where this practise still continues. They remain backward, and yet your logic (in terms of Iraq/Afghanistan) was to intervene - so why not intervene in this brutal killing also just as the British did many years ago? the British actually treated the red Indians far better than the Americans for example, we sectioned large reserves for the remaining tribes and when we lost control of the 13 colonies many Indian tribes migrated northwards into British North America (modern day Canada) which was still under the rule of Britain.

I'd like to know where Africa/Asia would be without the British infastructure they still depend on along with the advancements that the British brought about in terms of battling tropical diseases and birth deaths - not in a good place I can gurantee, far worse than they are now.

I guess it's harsh to push total blame onto the British Empire for all of Africa, but they were a major player in the export of slaves, as well as turning countries in Africa into their satellites and colonizing. That's crippled a lot of Africa and that's on the old empire's head.

There was a British man who controlled a Canadian city, Halifax by the name of Edward Cornwallis. He paid what's now thousands of dollars to any citizen who brought him back the human scalps of anative. People from the Empire went out and killed thousands of natives, babies even, ruthlessly for his money.

The Empire also enslaved natives, and forced them into something called residential schools here in Canada. A reason the Canadian Government pays reparations out to native familes now is because of how they were treated in these schools. The children had to live away from the parents, and learn English. Speaking their native tongue resulted in beatings or death. The death rate amongst students of these schools was horrendous. Excessive rape and abuse toward students.

In Canada atleast, it's a very fundamental part of every history course, as well as something which is usually an element in most history courses you will see over here, where the British Empire is portrayed most always as the big bad government who takes advantage of everyone else. Their aggression towards natives is not simply biological. It's vicious and intended genocide with cold blooded murder for self gain at heart.

Also some food for thought Dan, saying "Red Native" is typically offensive here, and no the British Empire treated Americans a thousand times better than they did Natives. Even after we were independent we still treated them worse and today in our society there's even still biases against them.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I guess it's harsh to push total blame onto the British Empire for all of Africa, but they were a major player in the export of slaves, as well as turning countries in Africa into their satellites and colonizing. That's crippled a lot of Africa and that's on the old empire's head.

If anything its the opposite way around, yes slavery was wrong but Africans population is exploding at the moment and its struggling to feed its population due to a high population (Africa will in the future, combined, have a population higher than that of China and India). The slavery was wrong from the offset yes, and English people suffered also from the slavery as those who worked on the boats actually suffered a higher mortality rate than the slaves themselves would you believe - but Britain abolished it first, we even pirated and attacked other nations ships carrying slaves because we felt the practice to be that wrong.

There was a British man who controlled a Canadian city, Halifax by the name of Edward Cornwallis. He paid what's now thousands of dollars to any citizen who brought him back the human scalps of native. People from the Empire went out and killed thousands of natives, babies even, ruthlessly for his money.

As I said before, there were bad guys in it - just as some soldiers in Iraq are just the same. I pointed to General Dyer in the British Raj, turning the rifles on innocents for assembling when assembling was banned.

The Empire also enslaved natives, and forced them into something called residential schools here in Canada. A reason the Canadian Government pays reparations out to native familes now is because of how they were treated in these schools. The children had to live away from the parents, and learn English. The death rate amongst students of these schools was horrendous. Excessive rape and abuse toward students.

I have not read of native slavery, I know though that natives migrated to the British North America precisely because the British treated them well (the Crown) as opposed to those who were in the thirteen colonies both before independence and afterwards. As for schools, well yeah people saw people of differing ethnic origin different back then - thats hardly the fault of the British Empire. Britain opened its arms remember after the end of Empire to many immigrants from across the Empire.

In Canada atleast, it's a very fundamental part of every history course, as well as something which is usually an element in most history courses you will see over here, where the British Empire is portrayed most always as the big bad government who takes advantage of everyone else. Their aggression towards natives is not simply biological. It's vicious and intended genocide with cold blooded murder for self gain at heart.

I asked where the genocide was, there was none. The disease was accidental, except for a few isolated cases. Other than that, the British were accomodating to the natives (again, the natives followed the British upto North America after the 13 colonies ceaded from the early Empire) and i'm reading accounts in my book i'm reading at the moment now where the British tried to integrate the natives into the new world that was being formed.

Britain gave much more than it took away, and in those cases where it did take away - it was mainly isolated action.

Also some food for thought Dan, saying "Red Native" is typically offensive here, and no the British Empire treated Americans a thousand times better than they did Natives. Even after we were independent we still treated them worse and today in our society there's even still biases against them.

I don't do political correctness i'm afraid.

As for treating Americans better than the red Indians, of course we did - they were our people, they were the people willing to farm and build a new colony up for us so we could match the might of Iberia in what it had done with South America. The natives on the other hand in many cases weren't willing to be part of this new adventure, and thus i'm sure in many cases felt the need to attack the British - so on one hand you have your own people who you share deep links with, on the other hand you have a group which (like it or not) did not contribute and only caused trouble for British rule - who are the British going to favour I ask you?

Note: I wrote the 'treating Americans' wrong in the last post, I was referring to the treatment of the r-Indians by the British to the Americans (after ceading from the Empire).

[Moh]

Yeah, if I had £1bn, I'd forget where I spent it too.

[ifuseekamy]

Most African countries are backwards hellholes. Obviously by reclaiming them it would be for the greater good, not slavery or whatever. Or does imperialism in the name of morality now only apply when the country is abundant with oil?

[AgnesIO]

Most African countries are backwards hellholes. Obviously by reclaiming them it would be for the greater good, not slavery or whatever. Or does imperialism in the name of morality now only apply when the country is abundant with oil?

What a pathetic, insulting post.

[ifuseekamy]

What a pathetic, insulting post.

Why lol