"Scream Helplessly At the Sky" Events Planned For Election Anniversary

"I will be there, you can guarantee it!! My lungs will roar with liberal thunder hoping that someone will hear it and end the Nazi Drumpfs reign!" - @Rational Poster

"Everyone who hates racism, bigotry and advancement of the White race should attend! Yell and scream at this travesty world!!" - @HomerThompson

"If you do not attend this you are a cucked out snowflake who needs a safe space." - @Peloquin

"Yell, scream, chant, kick, growl!! End this nightmare with your voice!! Hear our liberal rebel yell!!!" - @Fawlty

"I cannot wait!! We need to let loose our woes having such a Nazi fascist pigdog as our leader!! Tears are in my eyes everyday over this but on this day, i will be screaming with tears of joy!!" - @Overpressure

<TheWire1>
<Dany07>

Man you're such a boring poster.
 
"I will be there, you can guarantee it!! My lungs will roar with liberal thunder hoping that someone will hear it and end the Nazi Drumpfs reign!" - @Rational Poster

"Everyone who hates racism, bigotry and advancement of the White race should attend! Yell and scream at this travesty world!!" - @HomerThompson

"If you do not attend this you are a cucked out snowflake who needs a safe space." - @Peloquin

"Yell, scream, chant, kick, growl!! End this nightmare with your voice!! Hear our liberal rebel yell!!!" - @Fawlty

"I cannot wait!! We need to let loose our woes having such a Nazi fascist pigdog as our leader!! Tears are in my eyes everyday over this but on this day, i will be screaming with tears of joy!!" - @Overpressure

<TheWire1>
... What is the purpose of calling me to a thread like this?
I don't believe in sky fairies, so that's pointless.
I do agree that Donald Trump is the worst President in American history and it's not even close, just as I knew he would be. Is that what you wanted, for me to acknowledge how shitty a job your laughable President is doing?

I mean, he's doing a great job if you run a swamp fill pipe, but otherwise...
 
I don't think these comparisons of Empire serve any purpose other than to show Empire sucks and industrialization is difficult on the population.

Karl Marx and Lenin hated the British Empire too but they appreciated that it was an advanced economy and that an industrial economy was preferable to a peasant one. I don't think Churchil cared about Indians or the Irish any more than Lenin cared about Kulaks.

Hell Catholic dissidents were both oppressed in East Germany and in Northern Ireland in the 80's . Both places had a state capitalist economy.

Hell one could say Churchil and Stalin were friends and there are photos of them smiling together along with FDR. Niether Churchill or FDR did a damn thing to stop Stalin from killing all those people in Ukraine and elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Get them to go shirtless and I'll consider watching youtube replays.
 
<Dany07>

Man you're such a boring poster.

... What is the purpose of calling me to a thread like this?
I don't believe in sky fairies, so that's pointless.
I do agree that Donald Trump is the worst President in American history and it's not even close, just as I knew he would be. Is that what you wanted, for me to acknowledge how shitty a job your laughable President is doing?

I mean, he's doing a great job if you run a swamp fill pipe, but otherwise...

You guys said it not me. Geeeesh
 
How does one find out that something like this exists? I never actually encounter this stuff in my life. I only hear about it from right wingers in the war room.

This was every college in America on November 9th, 2016.
 
What will be enjoyable is contrasting the celebratory threads, which will largely be about what happened a year ago, with the threads in celebration of all the nothing he's accomplished despite having the path greased.

Some will be about a single day, the others will be about every day since
 
... What is the purpose of calling me to a thread like this?
I don't believe in sky fairies, so that's pointless.
I do agree that Donald Trump is the worst President in American history and it's not even close, just as I knew he would be. Is that what you wanted, for me to acknowledge how shitty a job your laughable President is doing?

I mean, he's doing a great job if you run a swamp fill pipe, but otherwise...

Obama was worse. By far.
 
Interesting book that actually claims India benefited in many ways economically and otherwise.






"Now, however, a new book written by an Anglo-Indian challenges this notion. It asserts that in fact Britain laid the foundations for modern-day India and the prosperity that it enjoys today.

The girders for every bridge, the track for every mile of railway and the vast array of machinery required for India's infrastructure were all carried there by the same ships that helped exploit a land thousands of miles away. The engineers who laid the cornerstones for India's development from Third World nation to burgeoning industrial superpower were British.

"The indisputable fact is that India as a nation as it stands today was originally put together and created by a small, distant island country," says Dr Kartar Lalvani, founder of the vitamins company Vitabiotics and a former Ernst and Young Entrepreneur of the Year, in the book he has spent the past eight years writing, The Making Of India: A Story Of British Enterprise. It comes out later this year.

He adds: "The 'sins' of the Empire have been widely and frequently written about while the other positive side of the imperial coin, of which Britain can be proud and which laid the foundations for modern-day India, has always been overlooked. This is the first book of its kind to recognise Britain's vast contribution to India's social, civil and physical infrastructure provided during two centuries of colonial rule."

THE British administration of India, a country then with a population of 500 million, diverse religions and spread over 17,000 square miles, was "superbly efficient", he argues. Dr Lalvani was born in Karachi, in 1931, where his father was a successful pharmacist and the family lived comfortably. But in 1947 the partition of India forced them to flee to Bombay, where they had to start their lives from scratch. With that background he is better placed than most historians, who have judged India from afar. He claims that India's success as the world's largest democracy, during a period when many other fledgling nations have endured strife, is largely down to imperial rule. It established the framework for India's justice system, civil service, loyal army and efficient police force.

Dr Lalvani, who came to the UK in 1956 to study, believes that both nations benefited from the trade links that were firmly established in the 17th century and continued under the often maligned East India Company, which founded its first trading post in Surat, on the west coast of India, in 1613. Within 40 years it had another 22 bases, supplying the motherland with everything from salt to opium. At the time India, a country of disparate states, had no uniform government and it seemed that France might gain control as it also sought to expand its empire overseas. That prospect was ended by the victory of Robert Clive over French forces at Plassey, in Bengal, in 1757.

It paved the way for the British Raj to rule India for almost two centuries, for the East India Company to thrive and for fortunes to be made by individuals.

There were cases of corruption and greed and cruel reprisals against opponents but Dr Lalviani says: "It is important to note that there is a substantial list on the credit side.

"They include railways, roads, canals, mines, sewers, plantations and the establishment of English law and language.

"Great cities including Bombay, Calcutta and Madras were built and some of the finest universities and museums in India were founded. The first definitive atlas of India was drawn and there were great social reforms, such as the eradication of thugee (violent highway robbery), the banning of the custom of suttee (the burning of widows on the husband's funeral pyre) and female infanticide.

"Perhaps most innovative of all was the bringing together of several different states into one unified India."

Gradually the power of the East India Company was eroded to be replaced by more direct British government of India, leading to more investment. The Indian Army was formed and its top officers trained in new military academies, modelled on Sandhurst.

At the heart of India's development was the expansion of the rail network, originally built to secure the colonial hold, which still prospers.

Within 25 years, 10,000 miles of track were laid joining distant parts of the nation. By independence, 136,000 bridges had been constructed.

Today Indian Railways is the world's largest employer, with a staggering 1.6 million workers on the payroll. By the mid-19th century India had a postal system, the spread of the English language allowed communication between people from different backgrounds, and the arts were thriving.

Wildlife and ancient buildings, such as the Taj Mahal, were protected.

As long ago as 1905 India's first national park was opened, in Assam state, to allow the endangered rhinoceros to flourish unmolested by hunters.


Yeah, infrastructure for natural resources is the deal. The problem with this deal is that it is a handful of bridges and roads, for the majority of your natural resources for a few hundred years.

The banks of England and EITC should be compared to Nazis and other mass murderers.
 
Yeah, infrastructure for natural resources is the deal. The problem with this deal is that it is a handful of bridges and roads, for the majority of your natural resources for a few hundred years.

The banks of England and EITC should be compared to Nazis and other mass murderers.

Ah, posted in wrong thread. Written by a guy from India, thought it was interesting. Apparently they stopped the burning of widows amongst other things.
 
No. The oversimplification here is way off the chart. Bangladesh had it's own ongoing issues that had little to do with "colonial power". Colonial power being a prime cause is bizarre actually.
Could have they done more? Perhaps, but it's not cut and dried as some would like one to think.
Of course Bangladesh was hardly a paradise but colonial policy and the economic system imposed upon India made it vulnerable to famine and imperial policy also aggravated the famine at times such as in the case of the Denial policy in Bengal. As I cited earlier British rule had increased the instance and severity of famine in India by a significant amount. Churchill himself and his morally bankrupt posture towards the starving Bengalis was merely a microcosm of the insidious nature of British rule in India.
 
No, it wasn't. For most of the history of the British Empire in India, trade in India was dominated by government enforced monopolies, the most powerful of which actually ran the Indian government well into the 19th century.

It was a mercantile system that was dissimilar to free market capitalism. You couldn't just buy a ship and go into business trading in Indian goods or build a factory in Calcutta.
Perhaps in the beginning that was true but by the time of the Bengal Famine laissez faire capitalism was the hallmark of imperial ideology in the British Empire and had been for decades. That ideology shaped British policy and that policy vastly increased India's susceptibility to famine. Natural disasters and weather patterns may spark those famines but it was the political economy that provided many of its root causes and made them more frequent and severe. That political economy was rooted in capitalist ideology and therefore it only makes sense to blame those deaths in part on capitalism as it was actualized in British India.
 
Of course Bangladesh was hardly a paradise but colonial policy and the economic system imposed upon India made it vulnerable to famine and imperial policy also aggravated the famine at times such as in the case of the Denial policy in Bengal. As I cited earlier British rule had increased the instance and severity of famine in India by a significant amount. Churchill himself and his morally bankrupt posture towards the starving Bengalis was merely a microcosm of the insidious nature of British rule in India.

Very debatable as proved in original thread but carry on.
 
American discourse is just 80% of the right wing justifying objectively poor policy by focusing on and masturbating to 1% of the left wing, while 80% of the left wing tries to introduce both groups to things like science, economics, history, etc.

Congrats on being a member of the 1%!
 
Perhaps in the beginning that was true but by the time of the Bengal Famine laissez faire capitalism was the hallmark of imperial ideology in the British Empire and had been for decades.

1. So the 31 famines over several hundred years has little to do with free market policies then. But this one does. I have no problem with your opinion that Winston Churchill messed things up badly in this case, though your earlier claims that he hated Indians and didn't care if they died did not hold up well.

2. How can we describe a situation where the prime minister across the globe needs to authorize every movement of shipping as laissez faire? Your own description of this situation is self-refuting.

3. You are trying desperately to morally equate a famine deliberately caused by Stalin with the intention of starving millions of Ukrainians to death to break their nascent independence movement with a famine caused by a natural disaster where the British brought in 350K tons of foodstuffs from Australia to alleviate the suffering?

I can understand the criticism that the Brits ought to have done more, but to equate their insufficient response with deliberate murder seems obtuse to me. I don't think we are going to make much progress in this conversation at least along the current lines, so please have the last word.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,049
Messages
55,463,613
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw
Back
Top