International Aid

[DeletedUser]

You've got to ask then how Britain managed to enslave the people of a supposedly much better country than itself? We didn't exactly have overwhelming numbers.

To Radarr: I actually don't have a clue what you're talking about, I never remember even arguing with you on the UK4 forums nevermind you winning, so you obviously didn't make much of an impression on me. Also if you're just looking for a flame fest go elsewhere. It seems you've made enough enemies on the UK4 forums now, feel good alienating yourself does it?

How did germany take over france, or bomb the hell out of uk? How did the barbarians take over rome? Through force. Any countries around Switzerland can take it over by will if needed. Does this mean Switzerland is worse of than France?

 

[DeletedUser]

How did germany take over france, or bomb the hell out of uk? How did the barbarians take over rome? Through force. Any countries around Switzerland can take it over by will if needed. Does this mean Switzerland is worse of than France?

It's slightly different thought. Taking into account the climate, the area and animals that are all foreign to the Brits at this time, the odds were stacked against them.

Anyway let's drop this whole argument now because it's not really on topic is it...

On topic:

I think International Aid is needed ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS. There is no point throwing money at a developing country without advice on what to do with the money. I don't think many governments of developing countries can be trusted with large amounts of aid, so I would suggest giving money on the condition a financial expert is employed on behalf of the country giving aid, and money will only be given if the developing country accepts the conditions. It's a bit like giving a heroine addict money for food, they're not going to spend the money on food are they...

As for whether we should be giving Aid? Well I am a firm believer in charity begins at home. We went through exactly the same as what many developing countries are going through now, the only difference is the world is now much more efficient at killing people. I reckon the best thing we could do for the developing countries would be to sort out our own country first, so we will have funds available in the future to support them. I also don't think it should be a straight out loan with interest like they're doing now, because the money just isn't being used wisely and the developing countries think it's alright to just collect the debt because a large power will just wipe it off eventually. We should be giving money on a sort of student loan type basis, if they fail to meet the repayments we should be allowed to take some government property.

 

[DeletedUser]

It's slightly different thought. Taking into account the climate, the area and animals that are all foreign to the Brits at this time, the odds were stacked against them.

Anyway let's drop this whole argument now because it's not really on topic is it...

On topic:.

Different? how so, because u.k was the one getting bombed? did that make u.k less civilized than the Germans? civilization is not measured by who can take over who by force. and you have the ignorance to say that Britain brought "civilization" to the ones it conquered when they have been civilized thousands of years before . Britain robbed and pillaged the world where it could and enforced its ideals on the world.. Suddenly its different when Britain was faced with the same problem.

 

[DeletedUser]

[th][irrelevant insults deleted][/th]

Now moving on to the British Raj in India, yes a regime that gave an insanely greedy private company (British East India Co) the right to collect taxes and as much taxes as they want in my homeland of Bengal and the right to confiscate and redistribute people's lands to their own employees, and it did, indiscriminately.
Which intentionally engineered famines in order to drive up the price of the food that they grabbed from local farmers (resulting in the death of 2 million +).
Which prevented local farmers from growing necessities such as rice, tortured them for doing so, and forced them to make indigo because the dye sold well back in Europe.
A regime that made it illegal to buy any cloth that was not made in England and exported to India (and chopped off the hands of anyone who disobeyed this and spun cloth here).
A regime that sacked every treasury in the subcontinent akin to the Spanish stealing Aztec and Mayan gold and transported it back to England.
A regime that pushed opium (formerly strictly banned) to the masses to create a public of drug addicts that were easier to rule over (and made that a central policy no less) and a market for opium.
A regime that was given to random acts of genocide in the name of "internal security" (read: personal entertainment), mass rape (tea garden concubines - local women forced to be sex slaves to the British "sahibs") and rape of the (very prosperous) local economy.

A country, that in general, built its economy on colonial exploitation.
A rule that was brought into place by lying to every individual kingdom in the subcontinent and playing them against each other.


What kind of brainwashed, unlettered, idiot thinks that the British did any good for the Indian subcontinent ?


The subcontinent had a higher literacy rate than England did when you thieves first came (so out goes the "Oh our missionaries taught you letters" garbage).
It had a more advanced public welfare system.
It had a much greater share of the world economy and more internal trade.
It was completely self sufficient.
It was more culturally advanced.
It had its own legal code.

The British rule ruined all of that. The railway, the abolition of Sati, the establishment of a civil service. These are not benefits brought by the British which would not have otherwise arrived, these are technological and social changes that are bound to occur anyways in any society.


So yes, your question was regarding whether India benefited from British rule ? Absolutely not.

 

[DeletedUser]

Pretty much Olly just got pwnt.

I read your post and I agree with much that has been said. Botswana is quite a nice country and one that I would like to visit soon. As I said before Africa is a vast continent and many of the countries you visited are quite nice.

South Africa - My old science teacher used to come from South Africa, the current crime rate in South Africa is quite high although if you look after yourself and visit the tourist districts and friendly area's of the country it's a country with a rich culture and historic background.

Kenya - I recently did some research on Kenya and found out that Kenya is the success story of Eastern Africa, it's had it's issues in the past but most of it's current issues are with minor corruption. They even have a plan to reach the status of quite a developed country by 2030 and their even moving people out the horrible slums and constructing them affordable housing which shall be able to get them out of them poverty ladder and make cracking down on the few criminals in the area easier for the local police.

Egypt - Although it's in a period of instability with the recent anti-government protests the economy of Egypt has been quite stable and growing well over the past decades with steady growth and a good tourist district, all zones which are well under control. The current Egyptian state has also been quite Pro-Israeli and been a key mediator in the talks between the Israeli and Palestinian state.

I don't know much about Namibia although I heard it's having issues with a HIV/Aids epidemic. African politics can be quite simple or complicated to understand, it helps to understand the history of the Continent and country your referring to

e: From what I understand about the history of Bangladesh you managed to forge your independence from Pakistan during the Indian-Pakistsan war. I think Bangladesh was known as East Pakistan during that time, when Pakistan was completely decisively defeated. I most congratulate your country on it's equality reforms and growing economy.

Intentional double post, the last post is big enough as it is.

I'll put it into context. Botswana has Africa's most severe case of HIV/AIDS epidemic. It has the continents (and one of the world's) lowest population growths due to HIV. Yet, its per capita annual income is 15,000 ~ USD.

Just because a country is ravaged by HIV, doesn't mean its in a bad way. Namibia's HIV related problems are not worse than Botswanas. However, the economy is much weaker. That itself (the country's are neighbours) is an example of the argument me and Bad Horse are providing.
Namibia is not less stable than Botswana.
Botswana was heavily invested in from other countries. Namibia became dependent of foreign aid (i.e. foreign loans which it needs to repay with interest). Botswana did not accrue either these debts or this dependency. And it prospered as such.

Foreign aid creates dependency and debt, foreign investment creates progress and self sustenance. Its exactly what happened in Kenya as well (they advanced through their tourism and tea industries), Egypt (international maritime trade + tourism).
South Africa is unique because its the only African country which had a capital base to start with, it also has the most natural resources of any country in Africa and is its strongest economy.
But yes, it does have a president accused of raping an AIDS victim and the even the custom's officials will mug you :lol:
Cape Town is an awesome (and relatively safe) place to be though.
These are not nations that received a lot of foreign aid. Other than SA, they didn't have any overt advantages post colonial era either.

Thank you regarding your comments on Bangladesh. Therein that was another failure of the UN, a genocide of 3+ million people occurred while the UN debated whether it was "appropriate to bring up the internal issues of Pakistan" in in General Assembly.
Getting rid of the Pakis was the best thing that happened for the Bangali people since before the British arrived.


P.S. Its not the India-Pakistan war. Its the Bangladesh War of Liberation in 1971.
The India-Pakistan was was over Kashmir and it was in 1960

 

[DeletedUser]

What kind of brainwashed, unlettered, idiot thinks that the British did any good for the Indian subcontinent ?

The type brought up on British education, I think you answered your own question.

Can you say hand on heart that India (note: Not the Indian subcontinent, I'm not including bangladesh, burma, pakistan etc in this) would be a LOT better off if Britain hadn't conquered it? Even if India wasn't better off, a lot of countries were better off because of Britain conquering it, we were the centre of trade throughout the world due to the huge empire, and we shared so many cultures it's unbelievable. Not only did we take things from India around the world, but brought things to India from the empire. I will take India's railways as an example - we constructed tons of them for quick easy transport, which are still used today to a huge extent. A huge number of Indians use rail as a mode of transport, and Britain was the catalyst for supplying them.

Whilst many people on here seem to be arguing about India being extremely civilized before Britain conquered them, India never had the same infrastructure Britain had, the same military, the same navy, the same trading facilities. So whilst you say we set them back a long way, I believe we gave India the tools needed to develop. Of course the British weren't perfect whilst they were there, but atleast they didn't go around killing all the minorities (which many people seem to portray us as bad as Hitler)

I think you are overestimating India at the time, you seem to think they were better than Britain for some reason, and you've pulled up a load of "facts" without any proof. Did they used to do mass surveys in those times, going around everyone's houses asking if they could "read." No, they didn't. You've just got a chip on your shoulder about the British, whether it's because your jealous, or just been fed on a "brainwashed" education.

Also to Pervie: Keep your insults out of these forums please, I never once came on looked at one of your arguments or anyone else's for that matter.. and thought "I don't agree with your point of view" and say "I should stomp some sense into you."

 

[DeletedUser]

The type brought up on British education, I think you answered your own question.

Can you say hand on heart that India (note: Not the Indian subcontinent, I'm not including bangladesh, burma, pakistan etc in this) would be a LOT better off if Britain hadn't conquered it? Even if India wasn't better off, a lot of countries were better off because of Britain conquering it, we were the centre of trade throughout the world due to the huge empire, and we shared so many cultures it's unbelievable. Not only did we take things from India around the world, but brought things to India from the empire. I will take India's railways as an example - we constructed tons of them for quick easy transport, which are still used today to a huge extent. A huge number of Indians use rail as a mode of transport, and Britain was the catalyst for supplying them.

Whilst many people on here seem to be arguing about India being extremely civilized before Britain conquered them, India never had the same infrastructure Britain had, the same military, the same navy, the same trading facilities. So whilst you say we set them back a long way, I believe we gave India the tools needed to develop. Of course the British weren't perfect whilst they were there, but atleast they didn't go around killing all the minorities (which many people seem to portray us as bad as Hitler)

I think you are overestimating India at the time, you seem to think they were better than Britain for some reason, and you've pulled up a load of "facts" without any proof. Did they used to do mass surveys in those times, going around everyone's houses asking if they could "read." No, they didn't. You've just got a chip on your shoulder about the British, whether it's because your jealous, or just been fed on a "brainwashed" education.

Also to Pervie: Keep your insults out of these forums please, I never once came on looked at one of your arguments or anyone else's for that matter.. and thought "I don't agree with your point of view" and say "I should stomp some sense into you."

Hard to pick apart utter nonsense due to the incoherent inaccurate and just plain historical ignorance.

To answer your question directly, no India (alone not the subcontinent) would have been A LOT better off if Britain hadn't conquered it.
Britain did not give India any tools to develop that it would not have acquired on its own in the natural course of development. This includes the railway.
And it exploited the place shamelessly robbing it of resources and practices needed for it to develop independently.

That is what the colonial British were in India. Thieves.
That is fact, it is fact because we live in the places Britain stole from.
You do not. Assuming you do go or have ever gone to school you have been taught garbage and lies about the benevolence of the British Empire. You cannot sit in UK and expect to know on site information about what Britain did in other parts of the world.
British education does not cover the atrocities Britain committed.
They were not "not perfect". They were genocidal cultural and material thieves.

Colonial Britain was quite as bad as Nazi Germany. British just refuse to acknowledge their guilt.

Don't post about things you know absolutely nothing about.

P.S. Quite rich asking me not to insult you. Want me to make a list of quotes of mindless insults you've parroted in this thread ?

The type brought up on British education, I think you answered your own question.

I don't think its true, but if it was, that doesn't say much about British education.

 

[DeletedUser]

Don't post about things you know absolutely nothing about.

P.S. Quite rich asking me not to insult you. Want me to make a list of quotes of mindless insults you've parroted in this thread ?

I'll post whatever I like, because it's a forum. Yet, whilst I try and turn this disgusting excuse for an argument into a debate it is you who are ruining it again. What are you doing on the Discussions forum if you can't discuss something?

Colonial Britain was quite as bad as Nazi Germany. British just refuse to acknowledge their guilt.

This has just proved my point.

You've just got a chip on your shoulder about the British, whether it's because you're jealous, or just been fed on a "brainwashed" education.

You do not. Assuming you do go or have ever gone to school you have been taught garbage and lies about the benevolence of the British Empire. You cannot sit in UK and expect to know on site information about what Britain did in other parts of the world.
British education does not cover the atrocities Britain committed.

Do you live in Britain?

If No, then you really don't have a clue about what we're taught, I obvious have gone to school; I use sentences, I haven't misspelled at all as far as I'm aware and my arguments make sense (to me at least). I have also continued on to further education, so I think your argument about me being some sort of bumbling idiot who has learnt no history at all has just been thrown out of the window. Commenting on someone's intelligence when quite clearly you don't have a clue who they are, or what they know is quite frankly absurd, it'd be like me saying "You ginger mug," do I know you're ginger? Of course not.

If Yes you do live in Britain, then why do you live in a country you seem to hate so much?

 

[DeletedUser]

I'll post whatever I like, because it's a forum. Yet, whilst I try and turn this disgusting excuse for an argument into a debate it is you who are ruining it again. What are you doing on the Discussions forum if you can't discuss something?



This has just proved my point.





Do you live in Britain?

If No, then you really don't have a clue about what we're taught, I obvious have gone to school; I use sentences, I haven't misspelled at all as far as I'm aware and my arguments make sense (to me at least). I have also continued on to further education, so I think your argument about me being some sort of bumbling idiot who has learnt no history at all has just been thrown out of the window. Commenting on someone's intelligence when quite clearly you don't have a clue who they are, or what they know is quite frankly absurd, it'd be like me saying "You ginger mug," do I know you're ginger? Of course not.

If Yes you do live in Britain, then why do you live in a country you seem to hate so much?

Another garbage response which does not cover the points provided.

Just as your previous response to my detailing of the ills of the British Empire on India.

Now I'm recently returned from participating in the World Universities Debating Championships 2011, and you are a very poor debater. You are a very poor debater firstly because you lack information on the topic (British rule in India). You provide incredibly stupid assumptions regarding what you think the British did in India. And you try and claim (an unproven claim and almost certain false claim, imo) about how good your education was in an effort that we will :

1) believe you
2) think that it gives your wrong info and stupid arguments any credit

No, sorry, nobody does.



You're furthering making stupid assumptions by thinking I hate Britain, this stems from your inability to separate my opinion of British Rule in India a couple of centuries ago to my opinion of the British and Britain today. The fact you cannot tell the two apart supports my previous comments as to your intelligence.

You claim I cannot know your intelligence but your level of "intelligence" is manifest from your posts. I doubt if I'm alone in my opinion of it.

This is a running debate, you just lack the communication skills, knowledge base and intelligence to add value to it outside of your insults.

Now this is my first post in this thread completely void of specific further info on the topic of Foreign Aid or of India. Thats because all that needs to be said to prove my point, and its proven to anyone who can read and write, has been said. The rest is extraneous.

 

[DeletedUser1511]

I'll post whatever I like, because it's a forum. Yet, whilst I try and turn this disgusting excuse for an argument into a debate it is you who are ruining it again. What are you doing on the Discussions forum if you can't discuss something?



This has just proved my point.





Do you live in Britain?

If No, then you really don't have a clue about what we're taught, I obvious have gone to school; I use sentences, I haven't misspelled at all as far as I'm aware and my arguments make sense (to me at least). I have also continued on to further education, so I think your argument about me being some sort of bumbling idiot who has learnt no history at all has just been thrown out of the window. Commenting on someone's intelligence when quite clearly you don't have a clue who they are, or what they know is quite frankly absurd, it'd be like me saying "You ginger mug," do I know you're ginger? Of course not.

If Yes you do live in Britain, then why do you live in a country you seem to hate so much?

You quote about how educated you are and claim to have gone to Eton. You use these are the basis on which your arguement has substance eg. You are intelligent therefore you are right, and yet you show no form of evidence that this is true and your arguements themselves are badly constructed. You then go on to state things to be facts, and then rebute back to people for not supporting their facts with evidence.


I myself am british and i must say. You are an embarrassment.

 

[DeletedUser]

For a guy who claims to have gone to Eton you sure are an idiot.

Sorry but you've misread, I never claimed to go to Eton?

Can the people on these forums not even argue without some sort of pathetic insult? Christ.

Template for all future debates for you lot..

*Insert stupid insult*

Blah Blah Blah... so and so happened... No I don't have proof, but I know it happened.

You uneducated fool.

You make childish comments.

You're such an idiot.

You know what... I don't care what any of you think. It's the internet and you lot are treating it like I've claimed Hitler was the greatest man alive.

Pathetic. Just Pathetic. Pervie, you should really be ashamed of yourself, I don't care who you are - but anybody with any sense of decency would see I was trying to move away from childish insults.

I myself am british and i must say. You are an embarrassment.

I myself am British and i must say... I really don't care what you say. You 2 deserve each other.

 

[DeletedUser]

For a guy who claims to have gone to Eton you sure are an idiot. You quote about how educated you are and claim to have gone to Eton. .

I'm pretty sure he said he didn't go to Eton, just that he went to a top college. I may have misread but am pretty sure that's what he said

 

[DeletedUser1511]

Sorry but you've misread, I never claimed to go to Eton?

Can the people on these forums not even argue without some sort of pathetic insult? Christ.

Posts have been deleted you claimed to have had a top class education...... I may be mistaken on Eton but i am 90% sure you claimed Eton.
But the rest of the post is valid. You claim to be intelligent and have no evidence to back this claim and yet ask for evidence from others.

Do yourself a favour. Have a third party read your posts.
If they dont think you are a moron then i am wrong

 

[DeletedUser]

Posts have been deleted you claimed to have had a top class education...... I may be mistaken on Eton but i am 90% sure you claimed Eton.
But the rest of the post is valid. You claim to be intelligent and have no evidence to back this claim and yet ask for evidence from others.

Do yourself a favour. Have a third party read your posts.
If they dont think you are a moron then i am wrong

I don't have evidence no, but I don't make wild accusations like "Colonial Britain was as bad as Nazi germany."

I have already accepted many of the things said, and it's nice to get other people's point of view - Perhaps if Pervie learnt how to present an argument without calling the other party stupid I would be more inclined to listen to him. I accept his points, doesn't mean I agree with them, neither do I say "I'm going to stomp some sense into him," Like he wanted to do with me.

Also the quote in question was me replying to Radarr who said just because I had "top education" I'm not intelligent, I said I go to a very good (free, before anyone says Eton) college.

I won't hesitate to give you a break from using this forums if you continue. As valid as some of your points seem to be in the MSD area, you won't have to add the personal insults to reaffirm them.

And yes, the "other side's members" got warned like this as well.

Impartial 3rd party?

 

[DeletedUser1511]

I don't have evidence no, but I don't make wild accusations like "Colonial Britain was as bad as Nazi germany."

I have already accepted many of the things said, and it's nice to get other people's point of view - Perhaps if Pervie learnt how to present an argument without calling the other party stupid I would be more inclined to listen to him. I accept his points, doesn't mean I agree with them, neither do I say "I'm going to stomp some sense into him," Like he wanted to do with me.

Also the quote in question was me replying to Radarr who said just because I had "top education" I'm not intelligent, I said I go to a very good (free, before anyone says Eton) college.

Impartial 3rd party?

Then i am wrong

 

[DeletedUser]

The type brought up on British education, I think you answered your own question.

Can you say hand on heart that India (note: Not the Indian subcontinent, I'm not including bangladesh, burma, pakistan etc in this) would be a LOT better off if Britain hadn't conquered it? Even if India wasn't better off, a lot of countries were better off because of Britain conquering it, we were the centre of trade throughout the world due to the huge empire, and we shared so many cultures it's unbelievable. Not only did we take things from India around the world, but brought things to India from the empire. I will take India's railways as an example - we constructed tons of them for quick easy transport, which are still used today to a huge extent. A huge number of Indians use rail as a mode of transport, and Britain was the catalyst for supplying them.

Whilst many people on here seem to be arguing about India being extremely civilized before Britain conquered them, India never had the same infrastructure Britain had, the same military, the same navy, the same trading facilities. So whilst you say we set them back a long way, I believe we gave India the tools needed to develop. Of course the British weren't perfect whilst they were there, but atleast they didn't go around killing all the minorities (which many people seem to portray us as bad as Hitler)

I think you are overestimating India at the time, you seem to think they were better than Britain for some reason, and you've pulled up a load of "facts" without any proof. Did they used to do mass surveys in those times, going around everyone's houses asking if they could "read." No, they didn't. You've just got a chip on your shoulder about the British, whether it's because your jealous, or just been fed on a "brainwashed" education.

Also to Pervie: Keep your insults out of these forums please, I never once came on looked at one of your arguments or anyone else's for that matter.. and thought "I don't agree with your point of view" and say "I should stomp some sense into you."

I wonder if your British education told you about 12-29 million people that died in India because of British Imperial Policy.

In his book Late Victorian Holocausts, published in 2001, Mike Davis tells the story of famines that killed between 12 and 29 million Indians. These people were, he demonstrates, murdered by British state policy. When an El Niño drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan plateau in 1876 there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the viceroy, Lord Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent its export to England. In 1877 and 1878, at the height of the famine, grain merchants exported a record 6.4m hundredweight of wheat. As the peasants began to starve, officials were ordered "to discourage relief works in every possible way". The Anti-Charitable Contributions Act of 1877 prohibited "at the pain of imprisonment private relief donations that potentially interfered with the market fixing of grain prices". The only relief permitted in most districts was hard labour, from which anyone in an advanced state of starvation was turned away. In the labour camps, the workers were given less food than inmates of Buchenwald. In 1877, monthly mortality in the camps equated to an annual death rate of 94%.

Britian took food from india, so it could trade for it england and left india to starve.. and you wonder why people compare the British Empire to Hitler.

The railways you talk about weren't for the benefit of the Indian people, but to steal and send as much resources back to england.

Britian exploited India for its riches, India provided capital to the nascent industrial revolution in England by providing cheap raw materials, capital and a large captive market for British industry. In certain areas, farmers were forced to switch from subsistence farming to commercial crops such as opium, indigo, jute, tea and coffee. This resulted in famines and uprisings on a large scale.

Your so called high british education is biased and does not talk about the atrocities committed by your country. I wonder if they taught you about Jallianwala Bagh, where hundreds of peacefully protesting Indians were massacred (including women and children). At least the Germans teach their kids about the crimes committed by the Nazis. In Britain I guess you only teach about how you brought "civilization" to India. Own up to your past before you make such claims, Britian killed and enslaved most of the world. Sure they weren't as bad as the Nazis, but the nazis only ruled for about 10 years. Britian however ruled for 200 years, and it doesn't take much research to see how much damage Britain did to India and the rest of the world during their rule.

It sad that people like you are growing up with your so called "high british education" thinking that britian did India a huge favor.

Heck your own queen still wears a jewel in her crown that was stolen from India.

Educate your self, instead of following what your bias public education system has taught you.

Here is something to start with READ!!

 

[DeletedUser]

I wonder if your British education told you about 12-29 million people that died in India because of British Imperial Policy.



Britian took food from india, so it could trade for it england and left india to starve.. and you wonder why people compare the British Empire to Hitler.

The railways you talk about weren't for the benefit of the Indian people, but to steal and send as much resources back to england.

Britian exploited India for its riches, India provided capital to the nascent industrial revolution in England by providing cheap raw materials, capital and a large captive market for British industry. In certain areas, farmers were forced to switch from subsistence farming to commercial crops such as opium, indigo, jute, tea and coffee. This resulted in famines and uprisings on a large scale.

Your so called high british education is biased and does not talk about the atrocities committed by your country. I wonder if they taught you about Jallianwala Bagh, where hundreds of peacefully protesting Indians were massacred (including women and children). At least the Germans teach their kids about the crimes committed by the Nazis. In Britain I guess you only teach about how you brought "civilization" to India. Own up to your past before you make such claims, Britian killed and enslaved most of the world. Sure they weren't as bad as the Nazis, but the nazis only ruled for about 10 years. Britian however ruled for 200 years, and it doesn't take much research to see how much damage Britain did to India and the rest of the world during their rule.

It sad that people like you are growing up with your so called "high british education" thinking that britian did India a huge favor.

Heck your own queen still wears a jewel in her crown that was stolen from India.

Educate your self, instead of following what your bias public education system has taught you.

Here is something to start with READ!!

That's load of bull. I study History for GCSE (so not sure about anything further up) but I've been told about the horrible things the British Empire or Britain has ever done. Including the Blitz and how Britain just burned whole towns in WW2 just because Germany did it to them. I understand your point and it's good but don't blame the British Education System (as flawed as it may be) for Olis' ignorance.

 

[DeletedUser]

That's load of bull. I study History for GCSE (so not sure about anything further up) but I've been told about the horrible things the British Empire or Britain has ever done. Including the Blitz and how Britain just burned whole towns in WW2 just because Germany did it to them. I understand your point and it's good but don't blame the British Education System (as flawed as it may be) for Olis' ignorance.

My ignorance? No, in case you hadn't noticed there is more than 1 syllabus and curriculum. There are also varying degrees of detail, you're doing Gcse's - so don't assume you know it all, you've only just scratched the surface.

 

[DeletedUser]

My ignorance? No, in case you hadn't noticed there is more than 1 syllabus and curriculum. There are also varying degrees of detail, you're doing Gcse's - so don't assume you know it all, you've only just scratched the surface.

Apparently I know more than you. Ouch, that sure is a bugger isn't it? :icon_rolleyes:

 

[DeletedUser]

Apparently I know more than you. Ouch, that sure is a bugger isn't it? :icon_rolleyes:

Hahahahaha! Don't kid yourself child.