Britain Shaped the World says Tony Abbot (1 Viewer)

[alansarim]

This is the definition of an empire...

'A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.'

And, even if i used the word wrongly... you understood exactly what i meant...

 

[slickstar_01]

your Pan-Arabism disgusts me

 

[Trefoil]

You are an idiot. We are comparing Britain, Spain, portugal, French etc as Colonial powers as all of them at one time were great powers with colonies allover the world. I did not say Britain colonised Europe.

Spain colonised and settled much of Latin America and look at them from Mexico to Argentina, they are all 3rd world poor trash countries.

Portuguese colonised Brazil and Congo and settled in brazil, Look at them both countries are the poorest countries respectively in their continent.

French colonised many parts of western and central africa but didnot settled them, so it is understandable that those ex french ex colonies are poor.

Britain on the other hand, colonised and settled USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and turned them into the world's greatest and best countries.

If HDI has any meaning then why oh why Iceland no 1 in HDI is a bankrupt poor trash country now?

*sigh* I don't know why I even bothered trying to have an intelligent conversation with you.

But this is just warped:

Portuguese colonised Brazil and Congo and settled in brazil, Look at them both countries are the poorest countries respectively in their continent.

If you'll bother to check, Brazil is the resident superpower in Latin America (both economically and militarily).

 

[alansarim]

your Pan-Arabism disgusts me

your wrong... I am not a full blooded Arab myself... I am just trying to discuss a specific issue here... we are i think... talking about Islam not Arabs... so it appears you've missed the whole point of discussion

 

[slickstar_01]

If you'll bother to check, Brazil is the resident superpower in Latin America (both economically and militarily).

thats not good enough for Miss-IMAFUCKINGSLUT-Sarajevo

 

[slickstar_01]

your wrong... I am not a full blooded Arab myself... I am just trying to discuss a specific issue here... we are i think... talking about Islam not Arabs... so it appears you've missed the whole point of discussion

im not in the mood. your points are pseudo correct.

 

[alansarim]

I actually got sick of the discussion aswell bro... I better go study for my HSC...

 

[JB27990]

ok all you people who refuse to believe that Britain shaped the modern world and has left a massive legacy on it are all bloody idiots.

As several people have pointed out, the British Empire covered 25% of the world etc etc, bigger than any other. It has been at the centre of global politics etc for centuries and has only fallen after the emergence of America after WW2.

Britain founded Australia for God's sake! Is there any more reason to learn its history in an AUSTRALIAN history class?

And yes it has left a massive legacy, not least being the parliamentary system of government now used in just about every democratic nation INCLUDING all of Europe. No it may not have colonised Europe but they use its system of governance. Also its adversarial judicial system is used everywhere including places like India.

So apart from establishing basically the entire developed world outside of Europe, I guess Britain hasn't done that much.......What more reason to study its history?

 

[Trefoil]

Britain's parliamentary system is nothing special. Its uptake in many (but not all) Western states is more an arbitrary occurence. There are multiple solutions. And much of this work is based off Greek and mediaeval legal groundwork.

Britain spread a lot of things, but I don't think it's especially significant to credit Britain's legal/political system as especially unique or better (or worse). C.f. Napoleonic Code.

Basically any sufficiently democratic and consistent legal/political system well perfect itself because it is self-correcting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament#Origins_of_parliamentary_government

 

[chicky_pie]

You are an idiot. We are comparing Britain, Spain, portugal, French etc as Colonial powers as all of them at one time were great powers with colonies allover the world. I did not say Britain colonised Europe.

Spain colonised and settled much of Latin America and look at them from Mexico to Argentina, they are all 3rd world poor trash countries.

Portuguese colonised Brazil and Congo and settled in brazil, Look at them both countries are the poorest countries respectively in their continent.

French colonised many parts of western and central africa but didnot settled them, so it is understandable that those ex french ex colonies are poor.

Britain on the other hand, colonised and settled USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and turned them into the world's greatest and best countries.

If HDI has any meaning then why oh why Iceland no 1 in HDI is a bankrupt poor trash country now?

Pfft, Canada belonged to the French and was founded first by the French, the greedy tea sippers took it from us.

 

[chicky_pie]

ok all you people who refuse to believe that Britain shaped the modern world and has left a massive legacy on it are all bloody idiots.

As several people have pointed out, the British Empire covered 25% of the world etc etc, bigger than any other. It has been at the centre of global politics etc for centuries and has only fallen after the emergence of America after WW2.

Britain founded Australia for God's sake! Is there any more reason to learn its history in an AUSTRALIAN history class?

And yes it has left a massive legacy, not least being the parliamentary system of government now used in just about every democratic nation INCLUDING all of Europe. No it may not have colonised Europe but they use its system of governance. Also its adversarial judicial system is used everywhere including places like India.

So apart from establishing basically the entire developed world outside of Europe, I guess Britain hasn't done that much.......What more reason to study its history?

Raping Aboriginals and making this generation to apologise for it is not a massive legacy Britain left us with.

 

[MissSarajevo]

*sigh* I don't know why I even bothered trying to have an intelligent conversation with you.

But this is just warped:



If you'll bother to check, Brazil is the resident superpower in Latin America (both economically and militarily).

With a per capita income of $ 7000, Brazil is a 3rd world poor trash country. But yes, among those 3rd world latin American country, its the most powerful, mainly because its neighbours are as weak as New Zealand

 

[kylesandilands]

well he's not wrong... british history is significant
but there should still be a balance, therefore i think there should be more emphasis on asian history.
Abbott only argues this cause Britain has colonial ties with us.
but schools do look at the elizabethan age for yr 9 in nsw.

PLUSS the human development index has nothing to do with the financial crises missSarajevo

 

[MissSarajevo]

Pfft, Canada belonged to the French and was founded first by the French, the greedy tea sippers took it from us.

wrong, only quebec was, the french fought a war against mighty British empire and lost all of their possession in North America.

 

[cem]

but schools do look at the elizabethan age for yr 9 in nsw.

The NSW mandatory History syllabus begins with Australian Federation and does NOT cover the Elizabethan Age.

The Stage 4 course has a chance for students to study a range of Ancient, Medieaval and Early Modern topics but it is up to the individual schools.

I find it difficult to teach our democratic system without teaching the struggle the English/British went through to get it e.g. Civil War, Revolution etc but we have had to do so for many years now.

I think Abbot is right in that we do need to show that Australia's democracy was the result of a long fight from 1215 to 1901 but that it wasn't really fought for here but in England/Britain.

We do need to put Australian history into a world context in my opinion.

 

[katie tully]

It needs a complete overhaul, not just British history.

I remember spending half a term on feminism and suffragette's, which yeah girl power etc, but half a term? And the stuff we learnt on the World Wars was dismal, and anything pre Federation was so disgustingly politically correct. Settlement of Australia was reworded as 'invasian', that sort of thing.

I had a chat with Michael Costa a few years ago when I was at school. He's a dick, but even he agreed that NSW History is a sham.

It was history for dummies, imo.

 

[katie tully]

I certainly support more coverage of Asian history, especially China circa 1400s.

 

[Rings]

You know what Katie, I agree with you.

When I learned about the world wars in years 6/7/8, I never got the real picture of how terrible it really was. Everything was so watered down and so politically correct, that I seriously thought WW1 and WW2 weren't real wars. I thought they were just minor 'disagreements' and that the soldiers really weren't in any danger. I couldn't believe what I was reading when I did my own bit of research into the topic.

The history syllabus does need an overhaul, and needs to present the real facts about history in a way where it doesn't sound so trivial. Young people can hear about this sort of stuff without being 'mentally scarred'.

 

[katie tully]

Precisely. My dad is an avid WW1 and WW2 and American Civil War buff, so we would have been disowned if we accepted the watered down version.
I found the way it was explained was so god awful and boring. Infact the whole 9/10 History syllabus made me hate Australian history.

 

[Will Shakespear]

Australian history... now there's an oxymoron if i've ever heard one