"I'm an Englishman"

[Harry Angstrom]

England may have been the 'dominant' country, but many of the inventions that people are proud of came from the 'minor' partners. It's impossible to tell whether England would have achieved the same success without the Scots and the Welsh.

of course it is.

So name a more influential country.

 

[Hulkenburger]

of course it is.

So name a more influential country.

No it isn't, if I could be bothered I could look up historical analysis' of just how integral each part of the UK was to the British Empire. England was important, and probably the most important, but to essentially dismiss the rest of them and state that England would have achieved the exact same level of success without them is an astounding level of ignorance.

Also 'greatest' does not necessarily equal 'most influential', but if we're going purely off England, not the UK, then France has a claim, as does Germany.

 

[king of the road]

Exactly how I feel about the whole situation, except expressed far better.

The scary thing is it's true. Coundehoven Kalegri plan is what the EU idea is based on and it's main purpose was to prevent the Countries of Europe continually fighting each other, which now and for the foreseeable future, isn't our biggest worry.
It was one nasty MF-ing plan created by a bit of a nut job which involved genocide & ethnic cleansing. Hitler loved the idea, especially the mass genocide bit. The EU even have a yearly award named after him, and you guessed it, fat Ange has won it already. This plan is still the EU's mandate, but it all honesty it just really smells of another German attempt to conquer Europe, but this time under the legal cloak of the EU.

bingo!

The video was a bit lame IMO but he makes a fair point when he says we were never asked if we wanted mass immigration, multiculturalism etc, it was forced upon us. Same with the EU, although at least we got the chance to fuck it off (which obviously wasn't supposed to happen, oops). Mass immigration over the last 20 years in particular has been mental when you think about it. Net migration to the UK in 1992 was minus 13 thousand people, in 1997 it was 48,000, jumped to 140,000 in 1998 (wonder why?!) and reached a peak in 2015 of 332,000. At no point did any government manifesto even hint that this was the plan. Mental.
.

I didn't read the rest as you come across as a Tory cunt. 'Wonder why' ? I guess you mean Labour were in power. Then you conveniently don't 'wonder why' that it went up to 332,000 under the Tories.

 

[Harry Angstrom]

No it isn't, if I could be bothered I could look up historical analysis' of just how integral each part of the UK was to the British Empire. England was important, and probably the most important, but to essentially dismiss the rest of them and state that England would have achieved the exact same level of success without them is an astounding level of ignorance.

Also 'greatest' does not necessarily equal 'most influential', but if we're going purely off England, not the UK, then France has a claim, as does Germany.

Sorry i was agreeing with you. Of course it is impossible.

So England is the most influential but not the greatest. What's your definition of greatest and why are France and Germany possibly greater?

 

[Hulkenburger]

Sorry i was agreeing with you. Of course it is impossible.

So England is the most influential but not the greatest. What's your definition of greatest and why are France and Germany possibly greater?

I meant it the other way around, France, Germany etc could claim to have been the most influential. However, to be fair almost any nation could make that claim. The Greeks could claim to be the most influential due to democracy, the French could claim to be the most influential due to being the 'jewel of Christendom' throughout the middle ages, the French language was the most widely taught, along with Latin, throughout this period amongst the nobility; the effect of Napoleon still has impacts to this very day (look at which side of the road most countries drive on for instance). Germany could claim to be the most influential through Bismarks influence in 19th century Europe. China could claim to be the most influential through their invention of gunpowder, could you imagine the world without gunpowder? It could easily be called the most influential invention of the past thousand years. Portugal and Spain could claim to be the most influential through their role in the discovery of the new world/reaching India through the Cape. Even Iraq could claim to be the most influential due to Mesopotamia essentially inventing civilisation (very oversimplified statement here admittedly).

Several nations could also claim to be called the 'greatest' in history. Greece, again, has a claim through Alexander the Great, as does Macedonia in the same fashion. Iran could make a claim through the Persian Empire, France could make a claim through the Frankish Empire + their massive influence in the middle ages and beyond. The list is essentially endless, which is the issue with overly sweeping statements like this; almost every country has had it's day in the sun and achieved some incredible feats. To call one country the greatest or most influential above all others is to display a very poor understanding of history.

 

[Harry Angstrom]

I meant it the other way around, France, Germany etc could claim to have been the most influential. However, to be fair almost any nation could make that claim. The Greeks could claim to be the most influential due to democracy, the French could claim to be the most influential due to being the 'jewel of Christendom' throughout the middle ages, the French language was the most widely taught, along with Latin, throughout this period amongst the nobility; the effect of Napoleon still has impacts to this very day (look at which side of the road most countries drive on for instance). Germany could claim to be the most influential through Bismarks influence in 19th century Europe. China could claim to be the most influential through their invention of gunpowder, could you imagine the world without gunpowder? It could easily be called the most influential invention of the past thousand years. Portugal and Spain could claim to be the most influential through their role in the discovery of the new world/reaching India through the Cape. Even Iraq could claim to be the most influential due to Mesopotamia essentially inventing civilisation (very oversimplified statement here admittedly).

Several nations could also claim to be called the 'greatest' in history. Greece, again, has a claim through Alexander the Great, as does Macedonia in the same fashion. Iran could make a claim through the Persian Empire, France could make a claim through the Frankish Empire + their massive influence in the middle ages and beyond. The list is essentially endless, which is the issue with overly sweeping statements like this; almost every country has had it's day in the sun and achieved some incredible feats. To call one country the greatest or most influential above all others is to display a very poor understanding of history.

i disagree with all those claims. The industrial and technological revolution combined with the spreading of the British empire has made the world what it is today.

IMHO.

 

[Hulkenburger]

i disagree with all those claims. The industrial and technological revolution combined with the spreading of the British empire has made the world what it is today.

IMHO.

It may have, but without Mesopotamia essentially creating civilisation then there would be no industrial revolution, without gunpowder wars would be far more common (although less bloody admittedly), without democracy then we'd all be living under a form of absolutism. They all helped to shape the world we live in today, just as they will all help to create the world we will live in tomorrow, along with whatever emergent innovation comes along. I'm not really saying any of those countries are actually the greatest or the most influential, I'm saying that it's a ridiculous thesis in the first place.

 

[Harry Angstrom]

It may have, but without Mesopotamia essentially creating civilisation then there would be no industrial revolution, without gunpowder wars would be far more common (although less bloody admittedly), without democracy then we'd all be living under a form of absolutism. They all helped to shape the world we live in today, just as they will all help to create the world we will live in tomorrow, along with whatever emergent innovation comes along. I'm not really saying any of those countries are actually the greatest or the most influential, I'm saying that it's a ridiculous thesis in the first place.

So are you saying you cannot rank the influence of nations on the modern world?

Tonga is as influential as Russia?

 

[Hulkenburger]

So are you saying you cannot rank the influence of nations on the modern world?

Tonga is as influential as Russia?

I'm saying calling any one nation the 'greatest' or 'most influential' is a far too broad and sweeping claim to make. Of course some nations have had more influence than others, but the number of nations that have had a severe and lasting impact on the world is far too numerous to call any one nation the most influential above all others.

 

[Harry Angstrom]

I'm saying calling any one nation the 'greatest' or 'most influential' is a far too broad and sweeping claim to make. Of course some nations have had more influence than others, but the number of nations that have had a severe and lasting impact on the world is far too numerous to call any one nation the greatest.

So you can rank them but not in order?

i base my ranking on the way the world is now and how it has been influenced.

it's an opinion and not a fact but I cannot see any country anywhere as near at influencing the world as us.

 

[Hulkenburger]

So you can rank them but not in order?

i base my ranking on the way the world is now and how it has been influenced.

it's an opinion and not a fact but I cannot see any country anywhere as near at influencing the world as us.

Well you could perhaps draw comparisons between individual nations, such as your example above, but I don't think you could definitively argue that one country is the single most influential above all others.

Of course it is only opinion, it's not like we're writing academic papers on the subject. You're free to say that England is the most influential and I'm sure many would agree with you, I just think it's not a title you can give to one single nation.

 

[Harry Angstrom]

Well you could perhaps draw comparisons between individual nations, such as your example above, but I don't think you could definitively argue that one country is the single most influential above all others.

Of course it is only opinion, it's not like we're writing academic papers on the subject. You're free to say that England is the most influential and I'm sure many would agree with you, I just think it's not a title you can give to one single nation.

happy to agree to disagree.

 

[Kent_Mackem]

As I’ve said time and time and time again to people who’ve asked me that

Yes. They will have to. We have a huge problem in this country of employers getting away with shit conditions for service jobs because they know they’ll get some desperate EU migrant to do it.

Likewise we have unemployed young Brits with no work ethic

We need to fix both of those issues and Brexit gives us chance to.

Cool.
Good luck.

 

[JonnotheMackem]

I've said many times that there is absolutely no point in calling someone a racist on here. By all means challenge whatever racist bullshit they are spouting but once you label it, you change the argument and let them off the hook. Nine times out of ten you'll fall down the rabbit hole of 'Muslim is not a race'.
Occasionally (but not as often as racists would like you to think) people can have concerns about immigration without being racist.
I've only ever reported someone once on here* and he was a disgustingly pathetic racist. I didn't need to get into an argument with him, quote his post to draw more attention to it or anything like that. Hit report and he was gone forever.

*I may once have reported @JonnotheMackem when someone nicked his log in but didn't expect him to get banned.

I reported myself when I saw what happened

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

bingo!



I didn't read the rest as you come across as a Tory cunt. 'Wonder why' ? I guess you mean Labour were in power. Then you conveniently don't 'wonder why' that it went up to 332,000 under the Tories.

Never voted Tory in my life. The statistics speak for themselves.

 

[HebburnMackem]

Conversely it's also possible to be all of those things in relation to Britain and England while also seeing the value of multilateral cooperation, not being blind to your own country's faults as part of striving to make it an even better place and being conscious that our idea of what's British/English needs to be inclusive enough for those who aren't white Anglo-Saxon to be able to be part of it as well. And doing that doesn't make you a raging anti British traitor whose time in the metropolitan elite has cut you off irrevocably from the values and concerns of "real" British people.



Mate, the people driving Brexit aren't going to force businesses to improve conditions. Every word that comes out of them is that we should be grateful to have any job and that our kids aren't sweeping chimneys or on the game. They're hoping for a British born cheap workforce that won't complain because they've been given meaningless assurances about getting their country back

What you've described is very much an additional topic and is not part of being patriotic. Stop trying to roll them into one to support your agenda. Being patriotic does not mean your a racist and it's offensive for you to imply they are. Just because the EDL uses it for thier own agenda does not change the agnostic meaning of being patriotic.

 

[Man About Town]

Are you a white Anglo-Saxon Cockney Mackem?

 

[Cockney Mackem]

What you've described is very much an additional topic and is not part of being patriotic. Stop trying to roll them into one to support your agenda. Being patriotic does not mean your a racist and it's offensive for you to imply they are. Just because the EDL uses it for thier own agenda does not change the agnostic meaning of being patriotic.

I specifically did not imply that being patriotic is racist. I pointed out that there are those, and you seem to be one of them, who refuses to accept that others express their patriotism in a different way to yours