E
rusty knife cuz they pirates and they have the mind, soul and spirit of pigs cuz they eat pigs who cause bacteria and roll in theyir own shit filthy disgusting despicable subhumans.
You got a loicense for that chatter mate?
Shitskins hate us but they all want a piece of our land
What do you think manure is, chum? Do you not eat produce?
Heat kills pathogens, cook your meat to temp and don't wipe your ass with your hands then cook with 'em, simple as mate!!!
I don't like that country or the people in it
bri'ish
E
pufferfish
E
england literally colonized india its the complete other way around because not only do they have natural resources, they also have spices imaging being so pathetic pitiful and insufferable that you have to colonize a country for spices jfl you will never recover from this that is embarrassing and shameful blnd gloomy and trashy cucked country niggers are taking over the uk and so are shitskins just accept your defeat you piece of shit colonizer, whiteboi its over for you
Brits built the world. The Americas, Australia, Africa wouldn't exist without British colonisation.
Y-y-you conquered us for our spices! Hah, take that!
E
no they just stole
Stole? Stole what?
North America, Australia and Africa was nothing but primitive tribespeople when the Brits arrived. They built these places from the ground up. I don't know about India, but I'd imagine India benefited from British colonialism as well. Just like Britain benefited from Roman colonialism. You don't often get colonised by inferior civilisations.
E
they are masters of deception, stole natural resources, india had the polar opposite effect, colonization is only good for one teamStole? Stole what?
Maybe when it's occurring. But the aftermath of colonisation is that you get all the benefits without the hardships and discrimination.
E
i wouldn't consider destruction, trauma, rebuilding from ground 0 is a benefit, colonizations has very bad effects such as psychological Impact, environmental damage, loss of autonomy and i don't think any moral person can justify this after seeing the extreme brutality
Are you not bri'ish living in bongland yourself jfl
You don't experience any "trauma" from being born into a country that was colonised long before you were born lol. And, like I said, Britain built shit in their colonies much more so than they "destroyed". Also, India colonised Afghanistan, Burma, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia.
E
i wasnt born here
I see, and same
E
psychological and sociological research literally indicates that the consequences of colonization can persist across generations in various forms. Intergenerational trauma can occur when the effects of traumas experienced by one generation affect the mental and social wellbeing of subsequent generations. Additionally, structural inequalities established during colonization can continue to shape the opportunities and challenges faced by people living in formerly colonized nations.You don't experience any "trauma" from being born into a country that was colonised long before you were born lol. And, like I said, Britain built shit in their colonies much more so than they "destroyed". Also, India colonised Afghanistan, Burma, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia.
it's true that Britain did build infrastructure such as roads, railways, and administrative buildings in their colonies, the primary purpose of these projects was often to extract resources and control the local population rather than to benefit them. Additionally, colonization frequently entailed significant cultural, social, and economic disruption. Systems of governance were imposed, local economies were often exploited for the colonizers' benefit, and indigenous cultures were suppressed. The long-term effects of this disruption can still be seen in many former colonies.
tu quoque fallacy
lmao. Sub-pseudoscience.
Yeah, like people born in former colonies benefiting from 90% of their technology, infrastructure and wealth being created by their former colonial powers.
There's no such thing as "generational trauma" or "structural inequalities". My great Grandfather fought in WW2. I don't inherit his trauma in any way whatsoever. The complete opposite, I benefit enormously from his trauma and experiences.
What does that have to do with today? India has been free for 75 years and was increasingly free towards the backend of colonialism. Did Britain take all that infrastructure with them? Almost nobody living in India today experienced colonialism, they only experience the after-effects, which are more positive than negative.
Which is why India is a Parliamentary democracy today. And not a dictatorship or a Muslim Caliphate. India had a LOT of independence and self-governance under colonialism. Britain didn't rule with an iron fist, far from it. That isn't how British colonialism functioned. For example, when Britain decided it wanted to end slavery, most of its colonies, including India, didn't. And it was a major problem, Britain couldn't simply decree the end of slavery on countries who wanted to keep it. When Britain outlawed slavery in 1833 across its colonies, it excluded large parts of India.
Vague, abstract nonsense. Like the rest of your post.
Pointing out blatant hypocrisy isn't that.
E
post-colonial states had developed their own institutions, economies, and technologies since their independence. Moreover, the initial intent behind much of the colonial-era infrastructure was to serve the interests of the colonizers, often at the expense of the local population.
this is contrary to a significant body of research across various disciplines—including psychology, sociology, and history—that acknowledges the existence and the impacts of both generational trauma and structural inequalities. Generational trauma can be transferred from one generation to another through learned behavior, societal structures, and cultural narratives. Structural inequalities arise from systemic disadvantages embedded in social institutions, which can perpetuate the socio-economic hierarchies established during colonization.
anecdote
the mere lapse of time since India’s independence does not erase the long-term consequences of colonial rule. Furthermore, the premise that the after-effects are 'more positive than negative' is subjective and contentious. It is essential to consider the breadth of opinions, historical evidence, and scholarly research on the impacts of colonial rule, which document both the advancement and the long-lasting adverse effects on conquered societies.
this outcome is primarily a result of India's own leaders and independence movement pushing for democratic governance. Indian self-governance under colonial rule was significantly restricted. The British did introduce certain representative elements, but overall control remained with the British Crown until independence.
this is a misleading version of history. In India, for example, the system that can most closely be related to slavery was perhaps the caste system but these systems were not characterized by chattel slavery as known in the Atlantic slave trade. Moreover, the British had economic and political motivations for abolishing slavery and did so in a way that suited their broader strategic interests. also slavery still exists just un more insidious ways in britain
sieg heil, the west has fallen, the uk is a wasteland and your women are kissing niggers and curries boots, you will never recover from this.
Similar threads
- Destroyed lonely
- The Lounge
Destroyed lonely
Users who are viewing this thread
