Tatq
No. The continuous meddling has never been with the *proper* intentions to help or bring about any benefits for locals.
The west has only ever done anything for its personal benefit (including blind support for Israel) so its little wonder they leave greater devastation as they never intended to help 'fix' anything.
I could go on but Ash has done a far better job.
It's just an essential indifference, I reckon. If things don't affect us personally, it doesn't really matter what we say or think, does it. It's all just so much banter, in any case. I don't think it's fair to call that unreasonable.Originally Posted by Lady Henry AKA The African Queen
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
Ash's point, as I understand it, is that *we* are actually a thousand times worse than our adversaries. So, I don't see how that counts as racism.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
I wouldn't have described my point like that. I might have described it the way I did, though.
No, of course you wouldn't. That's how I have always understood it though. As a positive. For us.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
Look, only sometimes, and it depends who the adversary is, and besides, I don't know if evil can be quantified, can it? What is a single unit of evil called? A Mourinho, perhaps.
I don't know if you're just talking about the ME, but if not, what about GB's annexation of Benin in 1897?
The reason it was still uncolonised after the carve up resulting from the Berlin Africa Conference of 1885, was because it was economically worthless.
However, the King owned all his subjects (barring the aristos) as his slaves, and kept selling them to Arab slave traders and crucifying them for human sacrifice to appease the gods.
GB kept asking him to stop during the 1890s and he kept agreeing and then reneging. So when we tried again and he killed a couple of our officials, we invaded and annexed the place, despite the fact we'd now have to pay to administer this colony which would give us nothing.
Yes, we did nick the gorgeous bronzes (now in the British Museum and well worth a trip just to see those) but this wasn't the reason why we invaded.
So this wasn't for GB's personal benefit. (And I'm an anti-imperialist. It's just history isn't always black and white, it's mostly shades of grey.) It was to stop slavery and human sacrificial crucifixion. So even though these Beninis didn't have the vote under GB, they were no longer slaves, weren't flogged to Arabs and weren't nailed up to crosses on the whim of the king to appease the gods. Instead they lived as peasants under GB's rule of law.
As this cost us both blood and treasure, I don't think you can accuse GB of annexing the place for its own gain.
Here's a picture of a crucifixion there:
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-w...0%26edoptin%3D
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote