Top | Newest First | Oldest First
View 6 more replies »
AbbeyRhode · F
cherokeepatti · 61-69, F
@AbbeyRhode No Burger Kings in the UK? He could wear a paper crown
graphite · 61-69, M
Anybody else remember when Argentina tried to take the Falkland Islands in 1982? Right off the coast of Argentina. One of the few remnants of the British Empire. Argentina invaded, with the UK caught napping, with the place undefended. Margaret Thatcher sent fleets of ships down there and after a short war, retook the place. The US backed the UK, in violation of the Monroe Doctrine from 1823, which opposed European colonialism in the western hemisphere. Apparently, Prince Andrew sat on one of the ships off the Falkland Islands but its questionable whether he ever saw any actual combat.
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@ninalanyon
They were doing pretty well until the 1820s.
That's when they lost most of their South and Central American colonies.
And who knows? If the British hadn't already been there, maybe the Spaniards would have moved up the North American east coast from Florida in the 1600s.
They were doing pretty well until the 1820s.
That's when they lost most of their South and Central American colonies.
And who knows? If the British hadn't already been there, maybe the Spaniards would have moved up the North American east coast from Florida in the 1600s.
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@Thinkerbell The problem for the Spanish is that never understood that trade was the thing that makes an empire last, and that trade has to be both ways. The Spanish empire was almost entirely extractive whereas the British was based first on trade. I'm not defending the British empire of course, there were plenty of things it did wrong but it was mercantile and to a large extent (not entirely of course) based on bilateral transfers of goods rather than on simple plunder. For all its faults this made it last longer.
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@ninalanyon
What you say about plunder and trade (albeit unequal) is roughly true, but both empires lasted about 400 years.
Spanish: 1500-1900
British: 1600-2000
What you say about plunder and trade (albeit unequal) is roughly true, but both empires lasted about 400 years.
Spanish: 1500-1900
British: 1600-2000
val70 · 51-55
I guess that a newspaper like The Guardian would claim that on one hand, the subjugation, murder, and cultural genocide of millions of people would never have happened. And on the other hand, some of the world's most powerful democracies would never have existed, and workers would never have gained the vote or employment rights in the UK
deadgerbil · 22-25
akindheart · 61-69, F
Nimbus · M
@akindheart Indeed!
ArishMell · 70-79, M
Rhode57 · 56-60, M
It may have been a good thing . After all in the 50s , 60s and 70s they really screwed things up by handing back power to the people the countries actually belonged to . They really screwed things up then as most of these countries were incapable to govern themselves so went bankrupt and now their all starving . All because times changed and it was no longer politically correct to have white or british governance so to score browny points with the british public they handed back the countries not giving a dam whether these countries would suffer or not . Its corrupt and selfish british government .
Whatawebsite · M
Nimbus · M
@Whatawebsite Good point.
smiler2012 · 56-60
Nimbus · M
@smiler2012 Hopefully ;)
cherokeepatti · 61-69, F
Havesomefun2 · 56-60, M
Nimbus · M
@Havesomefun2 👍
LeeInTheNorthWoods · 70-79, F
Nimbus · M
@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout Where is that?
TheOneyouwerewarnedabout · 41-45, MVIP
@Nimbus utopia
violentred · 26-30, M
Nimbus · M
@violentred 👍
TheSirfurryanimalWales · 61-69, M
Here would be the only place they play cricket🏏
candycane · 31-35, F
No BMW