81–90 of 130 posts
Even though they mention it, I came across this chart a while back that shows just by how much bigger it was than the recent largest corporation https://i.pinimg.com/736x/14/4a/6c/144a6c7feb3823f5fd4baa562... It seems to have originally come from here https://i.pinimg.com/736x/14/4a/6c/144a6c7feb3823f5fd4baa562...
Your second link is a copy of the first. What are the units on that graph?
British Empire best empire. On balance probably a greater force for good despite it's misdeeds. The Guardian would love it if we all self flagellated for historical events and ignore any of the good we did it's part of their left wing doctrine.
I trust that you'll have similar gratitude for any doctor who kills you on their way to surgery, or any web developer who does the same on their way to build a revolutionary new Uber for Widgets
What's the point then of elections if its continuous lobbying with periodic interruptions that merely change the player?
Add revolving doors, favours to family and friends, media propaganda and modern democracy ceases to be meaningful and looks like lip service.
It is actually amazing how little British folks today know about their own historical misdeeds, they may accept the issues towards USA and other countries but tend to downplay atrocities magnitudes higher in India and other countries India is important because it was the crown jewel of the British empire and was completely destroyed of its soul by the colonialists with very clever mixture of politics, military and ot…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Mughal's did bad things too, but some of their kings like Akbar at least tried to integrate society and not cause religious strife. The Mughal Empire did a lot of bad things in India, especially nutcases like Aurangzeb, and Indian people recognize those bad things. The problem, as I understand, is that a lot of British people don't know all the bad things the Empire did, or don't learn about it the way German peo…
> Churchill's decisions directly lead to the death of millions of people in India. He's no better than Hitler It gets even more ironic than that. During the 1940s Bengal famine, things were so bad that the Axis powers offered to step in and send humanitarian aid. Churchill not only refused, but he tried to prevent the newspapers from printing news of the offer, so that people wouldn't know how truly unnecessary their…
It is actually amazing how little British folks today know about their own historical misdeeds, they may accept the issues towards USA and other countries but tend to downplay atrocities magnitudes higher in India and other countries India is important because it was the crown jewel of the British empire and was completely destroyed of its soul by the colonialists with very clever mixture of politics, military and ot…
I'm not an apologist for the former British Empire, but India's collection of tiny fiefdoms were basically lawless until the British showed up.
It is actually amazing how little British folks today know about their own historical misdeeds, they may accept the issues towards USA and other countries but tend to downplay atrocities magnitudes higher in India and other countries India is important because it was the crown jewel of the British empire and was completely destroyed of its soul by the colonialists with very clever mixture of politics, military and ot…
I'm not an apologist for the former British Empire, but India's collection of tiny fiefdoms were basically lawless until the British showed up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for educating me. I updated my post.
But I think your remark was valid though. Leopold II's atrocities get very little attention in Belgium compared to Nazism. There are still quiet a lot of statues of him. Which indeed sounds weird in relation to Hitler statues. It might be an idea to give them the same treatment as the Nazi party grounds in Nuremberg. Proper context next to them.
That I find kind of odd. His treatment of the locals in the Belgian Congo is sort of the gold standard for imperial oppression.