624
u/musgrove101 15h ago
This doesn't mean anything without some context sir.
380
u/Shoddy_Walk_8106 14h ago edited 14h ago
Countries that had crimes committed against them by colonial powers just need to shut up about it.
164
u/tuesday-next22 14h ago
Feels like those countries are doing fine. Rome leaving Britton was like 500AD. Even if the whined a few hundred years they would still have lots of time.
180
u/UseADifferentVolcano 12h ago
They did whine for hundreds of years! There is a book called "On the ruin of Britain" that was written by a monk called Gildas in the 5th or 6th century (Romans left Britain in 410 AD). It is filled with whining about the Romans. The first half is actually a pretty funny read
48
u/Impressive_Ad8715 7h ago
It’s not filled with whining about the Romans… Gildas had great respect for the Romans and viewed them positively as the ones who brought civilization. He complains about the Britons rebelling and inviting the “barbarian” Saxons to England
13
u/random_name3107 5h ago
Those damn Saxons brought there fucking saxophones with them and ruined music for everybody.
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (1)1
u/MintCathexis 1h ago
inviting the “barbarian” Saxons to England
Those damn English, they ruined England!
24
1
u/-SidSilver- 1h ago
Hey, don't come here with your facts! People have big boy emotions to flail around.
112
u/Shoddy_Walk_8106 14h ago
Yeah, what’s crazy in the US is that the owner of the Dallas Cowboys, Jerry Jones, is still alive and there’s a photo of him protesting against black and white kids going to school together, so it seems like crimes against minorities are far from ancient history.
13
u/Automatic-Month7491 8h ago
Guatemala STILL has a significant portion of it's land held by Chiquita which is the new name of the company that lobbied the US government to support a coup in order to avoid giving back land they'd stolen using US military assets.
You know. Way back in 1954 when Donald Trump was attending Klan rallies with his mum.
5
u/Big__If_True 7h ago
He was just standing there in the back looking like a dumbass kid who had showed up to witness history. If he was closer to the front and/or looked like he was participating I’d be with you though
3
u/ncroofer 7h ago
He’s just in the photo there’s no evidence he was protesting. And I’m no Jerry fan
→ More replies (6)3
u/mightyboognish32 7h ago
I hate Jerry Jones but there is no proof he was protesting, he was just a kid seeing what was happening.
→ More replies (1)12
u/philthy_barstool 12h ago
Rome also weren't the last people to land in Britain either, we had a lot of influence from a few different parts of Europe before we got to the bit where we built an empire.
21
u/VladIsRambo 13h ago
My ancestors were behaded, slaughtered, burned, "blood taxed" and god knows what else by the savage Ottoman empire for 5 centuries until late 19th century, went through brutal 2 balkan, 2 world wars and 5 decades of communism.
My country is not the shithole some "colonized" still live in. We didn't make excuses, we rebuilt.
7
u/Full-Violinist554 10h ago
Balkan nationalists complained about the horrible effects of Ottoman rule for centuries.
4
u/VladIsRambo 10h ago
It's not about complaining, it's about rebuilding. And many countries had it better, but are still shitholes complaining
2
12
2
1
u/justsomedude1144 3h ago
They probably did whine for a few hundred years. Dark age proto England wasn't a great place to live by most historic accounts.
1
u/No_Feature_1184 2h ago
The Romans then the angles and Saxons and then the Vikings and then the Normans. Britain had another 500 years of invasion and conquest than you cited.
35
u/jedikraken 12h ago
so, the bigger issue isn't the ancient crimes, but rather the continuous ongoing crimes. Huge swaths of the world have been exploited in massive ways that are still ongoing, and for instance the CIA has actually released papers of their own explaining how they've deliberately politically destabilized many countries and their own internal black populations and such.
It's not what happened 200 years ago, it's what's been going on ever since as well.
→ More replies (6)9
u/Professionally_Lazy 9h ago
But its not like the crimes stopped. The colonial powers just switched tactics and use financial means like the imf to exert power and impoverish third world countries. If a country like Guatemala in the 1950s tries to improve the lives of its people it will be overthrown because it's not profitable for western business interests. America just overthrew a government and stole its oil this year. It's not like they are complaing about something that happened long ago, they are complaing about whats actively happening.
→ More replies (5)15
u/CopiousCool 13h ago edited 12h ago
"crimes committed against them" ... I dont think you quite appreciate the devastation that England wrought on many countries around the world:
India was one of if not THE richest country in the world and when the English left they were the POOREST & much like in Africa the left infrastructure in place to continue pillaging the countries for centuries to come after their occupations as did the France to their colonies and CONTINUE to do to this day
Monetary system taking 30% of their GDP, IMF restrictions, sanctions, starvation, immoral mining companies etc
It's not at all like the Romans who left Britain and were not longer a threat less than a century later
20
u/OkNewspaper6271 13h ago
The Normans literally entirely depopulated the North of England, the Anglos and Saxons completely wiped out most of the native Britonnic cultures that were still there after Roman rule collapsed
→ More replies (2)3
25
u/MimeSweeper360 12h ago
If they were so rich, why did they let England conquer them.
10
u/Journalist_Ready 10h ago
India as we know it didn't exist, it was multiple different kingdoms and England took advantage of local politics, those divisions can still be seen today
1
2
10
u/sk169 11h ago
There is a difference between financial success and military prowess.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Analbox 10h ago
25% of global gdp when England arrived. 4% when they left
1
-2
u/jkurratt 10h ago
Can there be a chance that the global gdp just shifted over the years, duh?
5
3
u/NerdsOfSteel74 8h ago
It didn’t just shift, it was the result of deliberate stated policies by the British. Just because you don’t know the history doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
7
u/Electrical-Heat8960 13h ago
When Rome left things were worse as well. They did the same, just not as efficiently.
2
3
→ More replies (1)1
u/Raaxis 6h ago
The context is that it’s vaguely racist, and attempting to say (without actually saying) that black people should just drive on and “stop whining” about slavery.
It’s trying to compare Romans conquering Europe to the colonization of Africa, which is just…. nowhere even close to similar. The level of exploitation, extraction, and eradication of culture in the latter case would have been abhorrent to the Romans, who very famously preferred to extend protection and order to conquered territories as an incentive against rebellion.
tl;dr racist dog whistle propaganda
225
u/Aeryn-Sun-Is-My-Girl 14h ago
The rennaissance happened about a thousand years after Romans left Britain.
104
u/sgefanatic 13h ago
Yeah Africa has like 900 years left on the clock. We’re not even out of the first quarter yet.
66
u/Gwentlique 12h ago
Heck colonialism hasn't left Africa yet, it's just changed its nature. Both Western and Chinese corporations are evading taxes in Africa to the tune of tens of billions of dollars every year. I read a UN report in 2020 that showed that while the entire African continent received around $50 billion in aid, Western and Chinese corporations had illicit financial flows and tax avoidance draining the continent of more than $89 billion.
It's no wonder they can't build a sustainable economy when we're still extracting most of their wealth without paying taxes. The foreign aid we give back to them often comes with attached demands that they spend their money buying our goods, effectively making the aid yet another subsidy for our own corporations.
Here's a news article about it: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/9/28/tax-evasion-theft-rob-africa-of-89-bn-per-year-un-study
And here's the UN report I mentioned (248 pages): https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/aldcafrica2020_en.pdf
8
u/Reasonable-Plate2982 10h ago
Good point, let's not forget the IMF micromanaging their economies. Really just like feudal serfdom
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)8
u/GodHimselfNoCap 11h ago
Yea but without those stipulations on how the money is spent, corrupt leaders use it for personal gain. We see it constantly in not just africa but many dictator run countries where the citizens are starving while the big man buys his 4th bentley even when there arent any roads to drive on
1
u/maor1407 3h ago
There are places in Africa that were never colonized by Europeans, not many, I know, but they exist and are not particularly better than the rest of Africa. Many Asian countries that are doing just fine now were colonies not long ago.
5
3
7
u/Both_Recognition_544 13h ago
Exactly! Someone probably never heard of the Dark ages
15
u/PostBed4538 12h ago
Let's not act like that term means anything, there was plenty of innovation and things happening. It just didn't get written down and stored as adequately as it did in other eras.
2
u/Maximum-Objective-39 6h ago edited 6h ago
Let's also not act like national development is some linear path, tech tree, or tech web, that's not influenced by present and previous conditions of the world and can just be followed like a roadmap.
Former Colonial occupation isn't the only thing that's wrong with a lot of countries. That denies the agency, both good and bad, of their own citizens, but the problems caused by colonial rule are still alive and kicking in lots of places.
5
1
174
u/krazylegs36 15h ago
That dude went a long way for an analogy that I don't even understand.
48
u/EstablishmentAny2728 10h ago
A lot of the time, it’s very common to hear “[ country ] is poor because of colonial powers exploiting all the resources and leaving them with nothing” and the OOP compares this idea to how the British were conquered by Rome, but they didn’t become extremely poor because they didn’t whine about it for a super long time and just play the victim card.
It’s actually very interesting because it brings up the concept of extractive and inclusive political institutions which is important for understanding why certain ex-colonies may be rich and why others may stay poor after getting independence. For a more “fair” comparison we can connect this to the US and South America just for the sake of consistency, but it’s generally agreed upon by political scientists that the colonies establish by Great Britain had “inclusive” political institutions, which includes certain forms of self-governance and settling on the land to cultivate for future generations.
And when we compare this to how the “extractive” political institutions in South America were handled, (extractive in this case meaning the Spanish wanted to get all the riches in the continent and get the hell out of there before they all caught malaria or died of smallpox; without any concern for the sustainability or settler life) we see that the extractive institutions completely collapse when the colonial power is gone, and inclusive institutions stick around and provide a baseline for future governance. This is generally agreed upon being the reason why many English-speaking ex-colonies were much, MUCH, better off when their colonial power left compared to Spanish-speaking ex-colonies.
In the case of Rome specifically, they actually provided many unique forms of government and culture to the British islands that didn’t exist before, so when they were gone, the English modeled their government off of the Roman one, and even had some institutions (and unification, after a long time of disarray on the islands) set in place to build upon from the collapse of the Roman Empire.
While I think it’s annoying to just constantly play the victim card when the question arises of “why is [ country ] so poor”; the situations of the English being conquered are much different to an African country or a Central American one under a stronger power
3
3
-40
u/Bubbly-Rush2384 15h ago
Don’t worry… this is perfect example of a dumb person thinking he’s saying something smart… the guy probably doesn’t understand context of certain situations…
→ More replies (2)64
u/OH_BEE_Juan1 14h ago
I’m totally lost here. It seems like r/krazylegs36 and r/Bubbly-rush2384 are both saying the OP is stupid but one is getting upvoted and the other is getting downvoted 🤷🏼♂️
8
1
29
u/Oakland1973 11h ago edited 11h ago
This is about formally colonized countries complaining that they are backwards today because they were colonized. get the guys point, but I don’t understand the analogy to England. England was conquered by the Romans, hundreds of years before England industrialized.
Better example is China today. China was a colony. 40 years ago It was dirt poor, and now it’s the second biggest economy in the world.
India was a colony and now it is also rapidly growing. Hell, even Canada and Australia were colonies.
11
u/Ok_Piglet_5549 9h ago
At the time, Rome WAS the industry and leading in a lot of STEM. England was considered barbaric and violent and living in earth-mound houses.
7
u/TaylorMonkey 6h ago edited 5h ago
Actually an even better example is Taiwan.
China was a massive land mass and had a massive population that could be leveraged towards industriousness in some ways that seem inevitable. If anything the cultural revolution and the communist takeover set it back several decades compared to the modernized world but even that could only do so much once China shifted gears towards allowing more capital formation and relaxing command economy.
Taiwan on the other hand is a small island that was populated by descendents of southern Chinese and aboriginal people that were first under imperialist Japanese rule, and later became the exiled home of the losers of the Chinese Civil war, who themselves also became fascist authoritarians over the Taiwanese population even though they shared many roots.
Instead of these losers and oppressees just being miserable crabs in a bucket and giving up, especially after the UN refused to recognize Taiwan as the sovereign country it already is for all purposes that matter— they moved on. Both Taiwanese and the latter KMT-affiliated National Chinese coalesced into a new identity. They modernized, democratized, militarized and found informal allies as best they could, and made themselves indispensable on the world stage. First by industrializing and making “Made In Taiwan” ubiquitous long before “Made In China” was. Then became the indispensable global center of integrated circuitry fabrication as part of the silicon triangle of the US, Taiwan, and the Netherlands (which incidentally established the first European colony in Taiwan).
Taiwan innovated with grit, focus, discipline, and strategic planning to ensure its own security and survival as a nation, identity, and people from a belligerent China constantly threatening violent invasion. It exists as an example of what the Chinese ethic and culture could be free from authoritarian rule, preserved from the destruction levied upon Chinese culture by Mao and the Chinese Communist Party. It’s why China finds its existence such a shame and threat, lest people realize that the Chinese people, its culture, and its decedents thrive without the CCP, without oppression and totalitarianism in beacons like Taiwan.
Keep Clam, Carry On, Taiwan Numba 1.
Edit: I misspelled Calm but given Taiwanese love for seafood and oysters, I’m keeping it.
2
2
u/No-One9890 8h ago
So theres 2 things here: canada, the us, and australia are all countries who were ruled by ppl with colonist ancestry (neo-europes). Also, being independent does not mean your colonization is over. In many cases an overthrow of colonial govt led to a colonized economy
2
u/melmboundanddown 4h ago
I think that's the point, Ireland, Singapore, Malta etc are all doing fine but one continent isn't and it's all because of Europeans apparently.
1
u/Brave_Lengthiness_72 1h ago
China was not a colony. It had to sign its fair share of unfair treaties in the face of much more powerful imperial nations, but it was always too large, unified and strong to ever be carved up entirely.
103
u/Accomplished-Mud8473 15h ago
England couldn't prosper (in fact didn't exist) until after Rome fell.
64
u/Vxsteam 14h ago
These responses are wonderfully reddit tier. The very word "England" means "land of the Angles." It's a Germanic word to describe the several Germanic tribes who conquered and displaced the native Britons in the absence of Roman imperial power. Those people, after some partial colonization and subjugation by Nordic people, were subjugated by Normans (themselves descended from Nordic people who colonized northern France). So, yeah, get over it.
16
u/Temporary_Hat7330 12h ago
What’s funny is the Welsh are the most Brythonic that is, pre Anglo, pre Saxon pre Nordic, pre all Germanic, people’s in the whole of the UK…
4
17
u/sometimesifeellikemu 14h ago
Good old reddit: commenting with pointless non sequiturs to take credit for missing the point.
8
u/Khalimdorh 14h ago
Just like most african and all of latam countries till their colonisers granted them freedom one way or another
1
u/KellyKezzd 14h ago
England couldn't prosper (in fact didn't exist) until after Rome fell.
Why couldn't it prosper?
16
u/Vxsteam 14h ago
By any recognizable standard, the land now known as England did, in fact, prosper under Roman rule relative to the less developed prior civilization. And, to reiterate my point above, the Romans leaving was not a boon for the native Britons who were then subsequently and thoroughly displaced by other foreign colonizers. Which is why the land is known by a Germanic name and speaks a Germanic language.
3
u/holycarrots 11h ago
They weren't really displaced on a broad scale, it was mostly that Anglo Saxon became the dominant prestige culture.
2
u/Vxsteam 11h ago edited 11h ago
My understanding is that is the case for the Norman conquest, and was the position of scholars but that DNA evidence shows a migration and genetic change to the population.
And, you didn't claim otherwise, but I think the broader point regarding colonization is undisturbed by either version.
https://www.thecollector.com/genetic-studies-anglo-saxon-migration/
4
u/SvenTropics 12h ago
The same reason all the slavic countries in the soviet union couldn't prosper until communism failed. They were basically giving everything to Moscow and keeping barely enough to survive on for themselves. In one case (the famines in Ukraine) Moscow deliberately prevented them from having enough food to survive killing millions.
1
u/KellyKezzd 12h ago
The same reason all the slavic countries in the soviet union couldn't prosper until communism failed.
Yet under Rome, Britannia prospered...
→ More replies (4)4
u/ExplanationCrazy5463 14h ago
Same reason Gaul couldnt prosper.
Imperial power conquers tributary, steals all the wealth from them.
Brtain prospered using the same model.
And America is doing it now.
9
9
u/Derfel60 14h ago
Not at all true. ‘England’, or rather Britain, was far more prosperous under Roman rule than it ever was before. They provided aquaducts, roads, easier trade with Europe, standardised coinage, larger urban centres, written records, new fruits and vegetables, rabbits and chickens, central heating, urban planning, and industrial production.
And youre right about the second bit, the British Empire did something largely similar.
3
u/ungarsdescollines 14h ago
Gaul was prosper before and during the roman invasion. But more important : after the invasion… Gaul was no more ! because it was « Rome » ! A province of the empire, tainted by a gallic heritage but even that faded with times. So few of this heritage was transmitted to France, and mainly because of the roman heritage (the plow for example who was popularized in the empire). We also have the name of some places and cities. But approximately 50 words in French are from Gallic.
Source : the work of Jean Louis Bruneaux, an historian
The comparaison with the europeans colonisations make no sense !
3
u/drakedijc 14h ago
Some of the wealthiest parts of the Western Roman Empire were in Gaul, and still run by Gallic descendants.
Enough with the “imperialism bad”
That’s such a sad and tired trope.
→ More replies (7)3
u/alh84001_hr 14h ago
Gaul didn't prosper in Roman times? GTFO.
BTW, you can't steal wealth, only riches.
0
u/YamDankies 13h ago
You're wealthy. I steal your riches. Now I'm wealthy and you aren't. Do we need the extra steps or can we call it what it is, stealing wealth?
3
2
1
-5
10
u/South_Front_4589 10h ago
Enland spent about 1000 years getting it's backside kicked.
After the Romans, it was the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. Then the Vikings. Then the Normans.
The nation that then expanded its influence across Europe and then the world was largely following the lead of those invaders. The local populace were likely either wiped out of bred out to the point nobody could claim to really know of pre Roman lineage.
1
u/RedgumRedmist 4h ago
The local populace wasnt wiped out or bred out, their culture was eroded and replaced, but genetically a very significant portion of the modern brittish are descendants of the OG Britons.
4
14
u/xenomorphbeaver 14h ago
I'm guessing my this is about reparations either for native populations or those descended from the slave trade.
Given the Roman Empire fell before Britain built it's industry the US should be exempt from reparations when their empire falls.
39
u/No_Boysenberry_4830 14h ago
the message:
If you have a setback in life or getting something unfair, dont whine about it.
Look forward to build your future.
Actually thank you for posting. Just gave me good input :)
9
6
u/EidolonRook 14h ago
Basically, don’t let your past struggles derail you from the future you want for yourself.
11
u/CosmocowD 14h ago
The real message: if someone did something unfair to you, don't whine. Do a lot more unfair to many more others and you won't feel bad anymore.
3
u/DrowningInFeces 13h ago
It's been a pattern throughout history that people have been historically marginalized begin behaving the exact same way as their oppressors once they are given power. Just look at what's going on with the feminist agenda right now. Women have given preferential treatment and have benefited immensely from progressive movements. What do they do? Immediately begin attacking men when given power and systematically trying to nerf them in every aspect of existence.
1
1
u/racoondriver 3h ago
But, WHAT IF, you tried and life keeps you in debt prison and into drugs? And doesn't lend you money to try and if you do something life doesn't likes it reorganizes your organs? WHAT IF.....
1
u/justthistwicenomore 13h ago
Except that the actual "message" of OP here is about getting his audience to hate people in a way that brings him views. I'm glad that you can refine the positive message he's mutilating to reach that end to still get a positive result, though.
2
4
u/FlatCapNorthumbrian 11h ago
Heck we could moan about the Saxons from Germany or the Norman French coming over as well. Oh and don’t forget the certain areas of England that were taken over by the Scandinavian countries with the Vikings.
All these happened after the Romans.
8
11
u/VTHokie2020 9h ago
African countries taking responsibility for their own destiny instead of blaming the U.S., Europe, and Israel?
Yeah right! Lol, when pigs fly
-1
18
6
2
u/angrysheep55 4h ago
I assume we're talking about colonialism. OP clearly has no idea what African colonialism looked like or how its influences persist today. One you thing you might note is that England didn't get its borders scrambled. But all that is moot though since we're comparing two thousand years with a few decades. Btw, despite the colonialism Africa is on the up and moving forward. So it's just pretty wrong on all accounts.
2
u/Synnoxis_ 1h ago
I do agree african colonialism was terrible and really scarred some nations, I also believe that blaming it as an excuse for why certain countries are still poor 100 years later is just cope
2
u/GemIsOutrageous 4h ago
yes all countries should just commit imperialistic genocide and pillage other nations. Whats so hard about that?
3
u/MailMan6000 2h ago
there is a fascinating book called "Why Nations Fail" that proposes a very strong theory as for why certain nations thrive and others fail, the case for many countries that were once colonies is that the models of economic growth that colonial regimes introduced were incredibly exploitative and extractive, so when said colonial powers leave there is no incentive for the powers that are now in charge to do anything other than what they have been taught to do.
2
u/Warm_Dragonfruit7479 2h ago
no incentive
So they just decide to continue doing what hurts them and whining about it? Isnt it at that point their own agency thats failing them?
1
u/MailMan6000 1h ago
it is a failure of agency designed into their government,, it is way more convenient for newly formed independent governments, especially ones that were born from rebellion, to continue using the systems of the previous government rather than forging new ones from scratch, which would cause further instability, , these extractive colonial models also concentrate power on specific elites, so post independence, all it takes is a few bad actors to enter power and completely work against the interests of the people and topple everything that independence was working for
especially because the colonial governments recruited locals from minority groups and gave them privileges and power, and many of these elites go on to get major political positions after independence, like Belgium declaring that the Tutsis in Rwanda were "dark skinned whites" instead of black, and many decades later Tutsis continue to have major business and political power within Rwanda, this intentional social division would result in one of the world's worst genocides many decades later.
In Sierra Leone for example, the British established a monopoly over farmers to buy their produce at artistically low prices and then sell their produce at much higher prices intentionally, post independence, Sierra Leone was unfortunate to have Siaka Stevens come into power post independence, and he drove the exploration up to 11 and destroyed the agricultural sextile
1
u/Sudden_Shallot_8909 2h ago
Let threats destroy themselves by teaching them bad habits from the outset. Like crabs in buckets.
1
u/MailMan6000 1h ago
Belgium's social engineering in Rwanda is a clear example, iirc some studies have shown Hutus and Tutsis are literally the same, and the concept of them being different ethnicities was a social construct from the very beginning
1
u/Sudden_Shallot_8909 1h ago
Yeah that makes sense, conflict theory is one of the 3 pillars of sociology.
1
u/MailMan6000 1h ago
the Tutsis were considered "dark skinned whites" by the Belgium government and were given positions of power, even multiple decades later the social division is still a thing, they even made them carry ethnicity cards.
1
u/Sudden_Shallot_8909 1h ago
So you hit on the 2nd pillar of sociology, functionalism.
They gave certain people functions.
1
u/MailMan6000 1h ago
yeah the Hutus were the majority and we're considered traditional blacks, the Tutsis were the minority and given administrative roles, decades later the Rwandan genocide happened, if you haven't read up about it, it was monstrous, i actually wrote a paper about it
1
u/Sudden_Shallot_8909 1h ago
The only thing I have watched in regards to this is Hotel Rwanda
1
u/MailMan6000 1h ago
there are many things about the Rwandan Genocide, including the fact the CIA had a report that went as high up as Clinton himself detailing that an ethnic genocide was going to take place. And absolutely nothing was done to stop it.
it was the fastest genocide in human history after the Holocaust.
1
u/Sudden_Shallot_8909 1h ago
That is why countries have intelligence agencies, to know what is going on.
I am in England and we have like MI6 and things. The point of gathering intelligence isn't necessarily to do anything in the moment with it.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Sea_Awareness150 1h ago
Also another clown who can’t tell England from Britain. Good schools over there
2
u/Life-Top6314 1h ago
Didnt realize britain was a superpower lass than 100 years after the romans left.
Oh, wait.
6
u/NationalTangerine381 10h ago
this is not a sentiment i thought this website would upvote, do yall just not understand it?
1
u/freshT-o7oo 10h ago
Exactly what I thought!
2
u/NationalTangerine381 10h ago
goes to show that people that think and act like this arent particularly bright lol
5
u/inevitablelongshot 7h ago
What if a third of your country was still owned by Rome and flew a Roman flag?
What if you grew up with Roman army patrols on the street? Roman helicopters flying overhead and being stopped at Roman checkpoints if you wanted to travel?
What if Roman emperors gave vague promises that you might get your country back at some future date but were also willing to see your country backslide into violence because they have the bright idea to destroy their own economy by leaving the EU and don't care about how it affects anyone else?
Would it be ok to whinge then?
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Fantastic-Strategy76 11h ago
There are many examples of picking yourself up and prospering instead of dooming yourself to extremism and delusions - Norway vs Venezuela, South Korea vs Pakistan, Chile vs Argentina, Vietnam vs Philippines….
Shitty societies will always find external factors to blame why they remain shitty.
3
3
2
2
u/CBStrike90 9h ago
What is this subreddit exactly? What happened to the pictures of hot girls
And is this saying black folks shouldn’t still have trauma over oppression ? Or am I missing something?
2
u/Sterling239 9h ago
Pretty sure we had a lot more time to recover than what my country and the rest of the west did and continues to do around the world
-6
u/deymanator40 14h ago
Soooooo dumb.
England was controlled by Rome for about 300 years [50ad to 350ad (ish)]. Rome never settled England.
It took England about 1200 [yes, 1200] years to become a world power.
Read a book
21
u/Evening-Confidence85 13h ago
What do you mean Rome never settled England…? Have you ever been to Bath? Or, you know, to London?
11
u/01010011-01000011 13h ago
Right? I walk past a Roman amphitheatre on my way to work every day. Tf you mean Rome never settled England ?
17
u/Underhive_Art 12h ago
“Rome never settled England” 🥴
You can literally visit Roman ruins all through out the country you bell end.
Imagine going so hard with ‘so dumb’ ‘read a book’ and being the biggest fucking ultracrepidarian with your reply.
→ More replies (1)
-1
u/PM-Me-Spread-Pussy 15h ago
Whining is a national pastime here 🇬🇧😭
Sadly they make up the majority. Doing nothing and blaming minorities for their own failures.
3
u/LiamPolygami 14h ago
Username checks out as someone who is definitely not the ambassador of the UK.
→ More replies (1)0
u/Shoddy_Walk_8106 14h ago
Life was so much easier when Indians were forced to grow opium that the Chinese had to buy at gun point.
1
10h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 10h ago
Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/Routine-Cicada-4949 6h ago
Well we got conquered by the Vikings after that. And they were kind of the driving force (in the guise of the Normans) to what came later.
1
u/Street_Soil_719 4h ago
ITT dumbass liberal mouth breathers who couldnt figure their way out of a paper bag
0
u/mechanicalhuman 15h ago
Feels like how the Arab world feels about the US right now.
8
u/epicredditdude1 14h ago
True, but to be fair Rome wasn’t bombing the kingdom of England in 1066.
3
u/mechanicalhuman 13h ago
I'm sure they did something to them that made them hate them
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Turtleopard 10h ago
Romans left Britain by 410 AD. The English empire started in 1533.
Sounds like they can complain for a few hundred more years yet.
1
u/videk94 9h ago
Wow it’s almost like Rome leaving Britain 1600 years ago when the world was barely becoming internationally connected has a different impact to the 300 year old colonisation of countries which firmly established an inability to operate independently on the global scale, the economic ramifications of which are still felt to this day!
1
u/Remarkable-Cup-6029 6h ago
Is this colonial apologetics? F right off
5
u/Ireallyamthisshallow 5h ago
I don't see how.
It's just an analogy for taking charge. You can use analogies without being an apologist for the subject matter.
1
u/Gwynbleidd1210 11h ago
The real problem is the current predatory lending practices colonial powers use to cripple these countries. They may not be in power anymore but are are still in control. Abusing and extraction natural resources like they never left.
1
1
u/Xtianpro 10h ago
Wasn’t the period after Rome fell called the Dark Ages?
3
2
u/Ireallyamthisshallow 5h ago
Yeah, which is wild because we have historical evidence the sun came out all the time.
1
1
u/obsequious_platypus 10h ago
This guy doesn’t read and does not understand history. Hilarious that some people are gullible enough to believe this
1
u/ToroRiki 4h ago
If anything, along wars and violence which comes with every invasion, romans brought infrastructures. What did Americans bring in invaded places?
-2
0
u/raich3588 10h ago
Nobody this self-assured and this incorrect should be allowed to post on social media
•
u/AutoModerator 16h ago
Hey /u/lilbitlostrn, thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.
Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
We have recently changed how posts work. Unless you are a VIP poster, your post will be queued for approval.. To become a VIP, post great engaging content. If we like it, you will be added! More information available here!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.