Alright, i will stop. Brits and their bullshit are too fvcked up not to respond.
Brexit and Future of UK : Discussions
- Thread starter Vergennes
- Start date
Alright, i will stop. Brits and their bullshit are too fvcked up not to respond.
Slavery was already present in India. Genocides on a continental level? Which continent did they wipe out? But it was common in many of the colonies that Britain invaded, especially in South East Asia, even until recently.
Headhunting - Wikipedia
[/QUOTE]
No it didn't. It became internally self-governing from 1959 but was not independent until 1965. The GDP rose from 1958-1965, which was a fairly quick turnaround after WWII.
It didn't though. 1965 Singapore was wealthier than present day India.
I think you'll find we also stopped them being invaded by Soviet puppets too, which was definitely a factor which helped their economy prosper.
Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation - Wikipedia
They have a food shortage you dummy and they just started inviting the white farmers back.
Garbage, there was massive slavery. Records of slavery go as far back as the 8th century.
Slavery in India - Wikipedia
In the words of Michael Caine. "I used to think Luxembourg was a radio station..."
Yeah, genocide in a continental level. North America. Australia and Newziland.
Ahh here come more bullshit. Singapore become Independent in 1959. It become republic in 1965 just like India did in 1950. India have queen as puppet head of state for 3 more years after independence and Pakistan for 9 more years after Independence and signgapoor had queen as puppet head for 6 years after their Independence.. Your biggest contribution to Singapore's economy is that the brits left it in 1959 for good.
Singapoor's GDP was not even 1 Billion USD in 1959 when Brits left it after their hundreds of years of glorious rule. You peoples really do not have any shame do you?
They have a lot of free land that's why. And they are leasing land for 99 years from what I heard. The shortage of food crops are due to the agricultural production of non edible products like tobacco and cotton which are more profitable for farmers than food crops. More than 70% of Zimbabwean agricultural production are cotton and tobacco.
There was slavery in all countries historically. In India a few centuries before the arrival of of colonialists, it was all but gone. It was mainly debt bond where peoples work for someone else to repay the debt they owned.
The slave trade continued to exist in the Mughal Empire, however it was greatly reduced in scope, primarily limited to domestic servitude and debt bondage, and deemed "mild" and incomparable to the transatlantic slave trade
We will let the EU put one up. The EU is going to build a wall folks and the Republic of Ireland is going to pay for it.
It will likely mean the EU imposing their will on ROI, because ROI does not want one either.
Last edited:
Native Americans are alive and well to this day. They put down their hatchets and everything was fine. Now they're in the most powerful and richest nation on Earth. Meanwhile Indian got its independence and is one of the poorest.
Not so, Singapore did not have control over foreign affairs, and GDP started rising in 1958. Growth was weak throughout the world 1950-1955.
Bad governance then. People cannot eat tobacco and cotton.
Nope. It continued under the Mughals. They even traded you on international markets. The reference for your quote is the Asiatic Society of Pakistan you loon.
You asked me about genocide committed by the British barbarians and I gave you few. As always expected from a Brit, he now started claiming that some natives who survived the centuries of rape, murder and enslavement of centuries are doing good so it never happened. By that logic, Jewish genocide also must have never happened since the remaining Jews in Germany are doing fine.
Here comes more bullshit again. Here is the chart of singapoor's GDP growth from the 50s onwards. From 58-63, they only had patial freedom so Britain should get credit for the economic growth of singapoor's during that time? Lol.. compared to the hundreds of year long era before 1958, when Brits have complete control over singapoor, their economy was close to nothing and it started growing when British control reduced and achieved full momentum when become completely independent. So it must be due to you queen right? How about you enlighten me about the economic situation of singapoor's from 1800s up until 1959 when Brits had full controll over singapoor? If singapoor can achieve positive growth with just partial British rule between 1959-63, economy must be growing much faster under complete rule of Brits for the last hundred year right?
View attachment 3202
Nothing to do with goverment. Governments cannot dictate what a citizen can plant in his own land.
Yes,and that is true. I am also siting Chatterjee, Indrani (2006). Slavery and south Asian history.
Emperor Akbar the great, abolished the practice of taking slaved in war and also freed all his slaves centuries before the arrival of Europeans.
There were more than British is America and it is not a genocide if they're attacking you.
Very poor graph because it is not adjusted for real terms. No non-western economies grew much between 1700 and 1900 because they did not undergo the industrial revolution. Same issue with China.
Err... yes they can. These are the same guys (government) who took the land from its owners in the first place remember.
Sure he did, that's why Mughal slavery was still going in the 19th Century and contemporary slavery exists well after 1947.
Slavery in India - Wikipedia
2016. Tut-tut. Please take the log out of your own eye first.
Attachments
Aha.. That new low even for a Brit. Brits murdered and raped every Natives including men women and children and committed a genocide to Natives by invading their land.
More bullshits.. It is a completely fine graph that shows how singapoor had zero growth and almost zero GDP for all its existence under British occupation and how they changed once they got rid of British occupiers. So how came singapoor had industrial revolution once they got rid of Brits and do not have industrial revolution when it was under British rule?
Taking land from british settler occupiers is completely legal, but the goverment cannot dictate peoples what to cultivate in their privet land of a citizen.
European's in general protected themselves against insane locals after they'd had too much peyote.
Except it show zero growth up to 1969, which is not accurate. This is because the scale is bad. We know there was growth from 1958-1965, so why fight it. We also know your friends, the Russians and Chinese tried invade with their communist ways via proxies and had their backsides beat.
Err... yes they can. If you can strip land from an owner, you can sure as hell tell them what to grow. Stop defending idiocy and incompetence. Mugabe was an imbecile.
1)Europeans invaded someone else's land
2) Europeans (Anglo Saxons actually) committed genocide of people's in continental level, including men women and children,raped them, traded them to slavery with an aim to wipe out and replace them in their land something even nazi Germany never done.
It shows zero growth since that what they had under British Rule. Their economy under British only decreased. Lol.. I can see growth in that scale from the moment they got rid of British. How about you post a chart that shows the thriving growth of singapoor's economy during it's hundreds of years of British occupation? Please enlighten me.
They took over land from British settlers on the basis that it was taken illegally from the Natives.They just corrected an illegal action to bring g justice for peoples. However, the goverment of any country cannot dictate privet citizens on what to do in their own land. It's against Zimbabwean law unfortunately.
So did all empires since thousands of years BC.
Yes the Nazis did attempt to do just that but no colonialists never did. They would greatly have preferred a cooperative population with no killing but all empires suppressed violent uprisings including Indian empires.
I have already shown a graph with growth between 1958 and 1965, so you lie.
No non-European nations experienced much growth during that period due to the fact they had reached human production capacity. Only the industrial revolution expanded Europe's growth.
The people they took the land from were private citizens, so yes they can. And Mugabe did what he pleased throughout his regime, including beating up the opposition regardless of skin colour. So let's not pretend Mugabe was prevented from exhibiting shrewd governance by his obedience to Zimbabwean law. He was a tyrant and could have done whatever he liked.
Nazis never attempted to kill peoples in a continental level. But the anglo saxons actually did genocides on continental level. Thats the whole point we started this conversation.
British occupied singapoor in 1819 and singappor become partially independent in 1958 and completely independent in 1963.
1891-1958 -complete british control= zero economy,poverty, zero economic growth
1958-1963 - Got rid of British direct rule in the internal matters = economy started growing slowly.
1963-today - Completly got rid of Brits, huge economic growth
In other words, when Brits occupied it, it was one of the most poor country. When they got rid of British partially, their economy started growing. The moment they completely got rid of British occupiers, they finally able to industrialise and become successful.
However, Shameless Brit want to claim their success. It low even for a Brit.
The Greatest British contribution to Singapore == They left it finally after hundreds of years of economic exploitation.
He only attacked the enemies of Zimbabwean peoples. The native farmers are not enemies of Zimbawe and he cannot use military of authoritarian means against them.
Attachments
Err yes they did, they attempted to wipe out all Jews and non-whites on the continent.
It only became internally self-governing in 1959 and completely independent in 1965.
1958-1965 = Growth
1963-1966 = British beat down the commie thugs.
1965 = Growth continued.
Show me a graph for the period 1945-1958.
Mugabe used military force against anyone who didn't do as he said. You are making some really stupid excuses for stupidity here. Are you a Russian bot or something. Do you work for RT.
Err yes they did, they attempted to wipe out all Jews and non-whites on the continent.
It only became internally self-governing in 1959 and completely independent in 1965.
1958-1965 = Growth
1963-1966 = British beat down the commie thugs.
1965 = Growth continued.
Show me a graph for the period 1945-1958.
Lol.. Why don't you show the details about the Singapore's economy from 1891-1958 when British invaders had absolute control over Singapore?
Honey and milk must be flowing through Singapore during that time right?
1891-1958 --Absolute British rule and Singapore is one of the most poorest nation in the World.
1959-1963 -- Singapore become a dominion and essentially become a free nation and economy stats growing
1963-today-- Got rid of Briton completely by becoming a republic in 1965 and economy grown almost 800 times. (63-65 part of free Malaysia)
Briton lost control of Singapore in 1959 just like it lost control of India in 1947 and become an independent dominion. The last Governor of Singapore was Sir William Goode and his power ended in 1959 itself and there was no British governor ever since. Compared to that India had Louis Mountbatten as governor general even after Independence(1947) for some more time. India become republic in 1950 and singapore instead joined Malaysia in 1963 by relinquishing the status of dominion.
Long Story short
The lesser the British control over Singapore, the higher they grow economically
The higher the British control over Singapore, poorer the Singapore become.
There is no excuse here. Mugabe used force against enemies of state. The new farmers are not the enemies of state, they are his companions in war against colonialism. He cannot dictate patriots and their freedoms and choices.
Why don't you show them.
1958-1965 = Growth
1963-1966 = British beat down the commie thugs.
1965 = Growth continued.
And then the commies attacked them in 1963 and we helped them beat the commies.
So he let his people starve instead.
You really are a racist. Black people can do no wrong in your eyes.
Last edited:
