comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 3 minutes ago
Greed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, because of inventions. And those inventions came after colonisation. The cotton industry, for example, became big because we had cotton from America. And when I say big I mean enormous, small town Burnley had eighty cotton mills.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure that justifies colonisation?

We certainly benefited but at what cost?

Does anyone need to justify colonisation here?

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 4 minutes ago
Industrialisation was the main reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And why was there industrialisation?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s no simple answer to that. Bales has touched upon some of it, but it’s a peculiar case where competition, capitalism, enlightenment ideas, science, an opposition to slavery, certain resources and some particular grate minds led to it happening in Britain.

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 3 minutes ago
Greed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, because of inventions. And those inventions came after colonisation. The cotton industry, for example, became big because we had cotton from America. And when I say big I mean enormous, small town Burnley had eighty cotton mills.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You ignored the firearms post I put in earlier? Okay.

comment by Insufferable-Piffle, just in case, I'm sorry! (U4388)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 3 minutes ago
Greed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, because of inventions. And those inventions came after colonisation. The cotton industry, for example, became big because we had cotton from America. And when I say big I mean enormous, small town Burnley had eighty cotton mills.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure that justifies colonisation?

We certainly benefited but at what cost?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not saying it does, just what happened.

comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 3 minutes ago
Greed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, because of inventions. And those inventions came after colonisation. The cotton industry, for example, became big because we had cotton from America. And when I say big I mean enormous, small town Burnley had eighty cotton mills.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You ignored the firearms post I put in earlier? Okay.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I sincerely thought it was a joke. Fire-arms to keep us warm?

There's also the easy accessibility of natural resources like coal which was all over in England. Easy to dig up, easy to transport, with a bunch of clever people coming and going with new ideas on how to use it..

People now believe they would have the same viewpoints if they were born two hundred years ago. Would not be racist, welcome diversity, accept women as equals etc. They wouldn't.

Who are these people? Seems like a mad thing to think

comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
There's also the easy accessibility of natural resources like coal which was all over in England. Easy to dig up, easy to transport, with a bunch of clever people coming and going with new ideas on how to use it..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah coal was part of it. But ultimately it was a culture of science and technology that led to it in Britain rather than other nations that had coal.

It's interesting this topic, and I'm enjoying the views and ideas of others.

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 35 seconds ago
People now believe they would have the same viewpoints if they were born two hundred years ago. Would not be racist, welcome diversity, accept women as equals etc. They wouldn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So when did all this diversity, and anti-racism start?
Many people were anti racist long before even you were born.
Why do you make statements like this?

comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 35 seconds ago
People now believe they would have the same viewpoints if they were born two hundred years ago. Would not be racist, welcome diversity, accept women as equals etc. They wouldn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So when did all this diversity, and anti-racism start?
Many people were anti racist long before even you were born.
Why do you make statements like this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah it wasn't exactly unheard of, far from it.

comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
There's also the easy accessibility of natural resources like coal which was all over in England. Easy to dig up, easy to transport, with a bunch of clever people coming and going with new ideas on how to use it..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah coal was part of it. But ultimately it was a culture of science and technology that led to it in Britain rather than other nations that had coal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True enough. That wikipedia article mentions that they had a lot of coal in China but it being such a vast country made it more difficult to transport. Also that as our mines were wet it was far easier to get as we just had to pump out water, where in hot or dry areas where mines kept blowing up from the dust.

But yeah. Overall it seems like the promotion of ideas driven by competing nations was probably the key factor

comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 1 minute ago
Who are these people? Seems like a mad thing to think
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly everyone. We all think our ideas are our own, and that if we were born centuries ago our ideas would be the ones we have now.

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 38 seconds ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 1 minute ago
Who are these people? Seems like a mad thing to think
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly everyone. We all think our ideas are our own, and that if we were born centuries ago our ideas would be the ones we have now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree entirely that most people think like that. It makes no sense

I think if you asked the average person 'would you think the same if you were born in China' they'd say no. Of course not.

Would you be the same person if you were born in 1882? You couldn't possibly be. I'd laugh if someone said yes.

52, you think most people put their thoughts down to their genetics? I can't understand why anyone would think what you're suggesting.

comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 35 seconds ago
People now believe they would have the same viewpoints if they were born two hundred years ago. Would not be racist, welcome diversity, accept women as equals etc. They wouldn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So when did all this diversity, and anti-racism start?
Many people were anti racist long before even you were born.
Why do you make statements like this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah it wasn't exactly unheard of, far from it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know what the common man thought centuries ago. Literature from that era doesn't tend to back you up. The stories I read, Treasure Island etc nearly always had black people as savages, Chinese as inscrutable etc. And writers were comparatively educated and travelled. Before railways most people never travelled more than 25 miles from home, unless conscripted.

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 35 seconds ago
People now believe they would have the same viewpoints if they were born two hundred years ago. Would not be racist, welcome diversity, accept women as equals etc. They wouldn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So when did all this diversity, and anti-racism start?
Many people were anti racist long before even you were born.
Why do you make statements like this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah it wasn't exactly unheard of, far from it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know what the common man thought centuries ago. Literature from that era doesn't tend to back you up. The stories I read, Treasure Island etc nearly always had black people as savages, Chinese as inscrutable etc. And writers were comparatively educated and travelled. Before railways most people never travelled more than 25 miles from home, unless conscripted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I said it wasn't exactly unheard of, because it wasn't, and I know this as it's well documented.

comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 1 minute ago
I think if you asked the average person 'would you think the same if you were born in China' they'd say no. Of course not.

Would you be the same person if you were born in 1882? You couldn't possibly be. I'd laugh if someone said yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you do realise there were people around at those times who supported diversity, were antislavery were against racism thought of women as equals?

Then why do people now think things done in the past, attitudes from the past, are unacceptable now and so should have been unacceptable then?

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 35 seconds ago
People now believe they would have the same viewpoints if they were born two hundred years ago. Would not be racist, welcome diversity, accept women as equals etc. They wouldn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So when did all this diversity, and anti-racism start?
Many people were anti racist long before even you were born.
Why do you make statements like this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah it wasn't exactly unheard of, far from it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know what the common man thought centuries ago. Literature from that era doesn't tend to back you up. The stories I read, Treasure Island etc nearly always had black people as savages, Chinese as inscrutable etc. And writers were comparatively educated and travelled. Before railways most people never travelled more than 25 miles from home, unless conscripted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back at you old fella. How TF do you know what people thought centuries ago? Surely even you're not that old.

comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
There's also the easy accessibility of natural resources like coal which was all over in England. Easy to dig up, easy to transport, with a bunch of clever people coming and going with new ideas on how to use it..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah coal was part of it. But ultimately it was a culture of science and technology that led to it in Britain rather than other nations that had coal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True enough. That wikipedia article mentions that they had a lot of coal in China but it being such a vast country made it more difficult to transport. Also that as our mines were wet it was far easier to get as we just had to pump out water, where in hot or dry areas where mines kept blowing up from the dust.

But yeah. Overall it seems like the promotion of ideas driven by competing nations was probably the key factor
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah definitely. Britain’s political stability and history of capitalism was also a big advantage over other European countries.

Listened to a podcast on this subject a while back and an example was given that Britain were reinvesting their imperial riches in a way that countries like France, Portugal and Spain weren’t. Protestantism had a lot to do with that, nobody did flash like the Catholic states. Whereas Britain was full of independent traders that had the time and money to invest in ideas.

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 6 seconds ago
Then why do people now think things done in the past, attitudes from the past, are unacceptable now and so should have been unacceptable then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Because it's what is right. That doesn't mean they can't understand why it wasn't as prevalent but either way that's a bit of a leap at best.

What you drinking? I'm on the cabernet sauvignon.