(July 12, 2013 at 3:11 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(July 12, 2013 at 2:57 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Chinese had Honk Kong took off them by the British.

And they took it back.

In 1982, Margrite Thatcher, flush with victory at Falklands, went to china to say Hong Kong belongs to Britain just like Falkland. Appearently the Chinese response was so harsh the Iron Lady almost fainted, and stumbled down stairs on the way out of the meeting. Shortly thereafter the british agree to give Hong Kong back in 15 years. That happened in 1997.

I know, so they accomplished getting their own island back, the point is that the British managed to take it in the first place.

Yes, the point is the Chinese had it before, has it now, the British burned briefly, not all that brightly except in their own minds, and is now just a whisp of smoke.

(July 12, 2013 at 3:19 pm)Chuck Wrote: Yes, the point is the Chinese had it before, has it now, the British burned briefly, not all that brightly except in their own minds, and is now just a whisp of smoke.

Of course the Chinese had it first, it's right next to China, that's what makes it such a big accomplishment that the little Island of Britain was so powerful it managed to sail to china and take a territory away from them.

It's fair enough if you don't think the British empire was the most powerful of all time but to say it wasn't even that powerful is plain ridiculous by any standards.

Try typing as I have into google, "was the British empire powerful" Google will auto change your question to " Why was the British empire so powerful" Because that is a more sensible question, everyone knows the British empire was very powerful, that's why you're speaking the English language now.

(July 12, 2013 at 3:19 pm)Chuck Wrote: Yes, the point is the Chinese had it before, has it now, the British burned briefly, not all that brightly except in their own minds, and is now just a whisp of smoke.

I was going to interject to plead with you people to stop bickering over a nonsense point and get back to the truly important issue at hand... the stupidity of Koolay... but this comment needs addressing.

Hong Kong was always on lease. It was rented, not owned by Britain. Ergo the handing back of the island wasn't a major concern (other than to the select few nationalists who are still shedding a tear about the loss of the British Empire, and the ability to go around teaching brown people how to play cricket before killing them).

But, Chuck, that "in their own mind" comment... STFU. The British Empire was the largest (and shortest-lived) empire that this planet has so far seen. In that respect (and as a layman historian) it is a very interesting subject. However, to burst that stereotype bubble, I have never in my life met anyone who wished that it still existed. They might exist. The world is full of all sorts of strange people. But for the love of fuck, don't paint the whole of Britain as some sort of empire-worshipers reminiscing about bygone halcyonic days. The empire was an astonishing accomplishment which managed some great things... along with some really really non-great things. I am very much not alone in having zero regrets about those days having ended... and remain thankful that it wasn't done in my name.

This entire conversation about empires puts me in mind of a nonsense argument my girlfriends and I might have about which nation of boys might have bigger dicks based on how pretty their accents are.

(My money's on "Irish")

It isn't, and really wasn't that powerful at all. Not compared to Rome, or the other really great empires.

The minimum threshold of great empire is that it has cleared the world of peer competitors that could threaten its own core security.

Britain was never able to achieve that.

For a while Europe enjoyed a big technological advantage over the rest of the world and it was easy for any European power to stomp on the natives. No big deal for the British can be able to go stomping on India if little netherland can go stomping on Indonesia, or Belgium can go stomping on Congo, or if Spain can go stomping on all of South and Centeral America.

Britain was more successful than most in later years, although Spanish colonial empire arguable left an even more likely enduring cultural and demographic legacy.

But at the core of British empire, Britain was never enduringly secure from other European powers. Even when it was at the height of its power, it was arguable not capable of really facing down and defeating its primary peer competitors. Britain could not acheive security without a continental alliance, whether it was against France or Germany.

In the rank of really great world power centers, Britain was second rate.

(July 12, 2013 at 3:35 pm)Chuck Wrote: It isn't, and really wasn't that powerful at all. Not compared to Rome, or the other really great empires.

The minimum threshold of great empire is that it has cleared the world of peer competitors that could threaten its own core security.

Britain was never able to achieve that.

For a while Europe enjoyed a big technological advantage over the rest of the world and it was easy for any European power to stomp on the natives. No big deal if the British can go stomping on India if little netherland can go stomping on Indonesia, or Belgium can go stomping on Congo, or if Spain can go stomping on all of South and Centeral America. But at the core of British empire, Britain was never enduringly secure from other European powers. Even when it was at the height of its power, it was arguable not capable of really facing down and defeating its primary peer competitors.

In the rank of really great world power centers, Britain was second rate.

Ah, I see now. Well, at least that's been cleared up. You're a moron.

(July 12, 2013 at 3:32 pm)Red Celt Wrote: Hong Kong was always on lease. It was rented, not owned by Britain. Ergo the handing back of the island wasn't a major concern (other than to the select few nationalists who are still shedding a tear about the loss of the British Empire, and the ability to go around teaching brown people how to play cricket before killing them).

No, it wasn't. Hong Kong was ceded to the British. An adjacent part of mainland China was leased to the British on a 99 year lease. When the lease was nearing up, China told the British the lease won't be renews and BTW they wanted Hong Kong back as well, and by force is necessary. Thatcher capitualated.

(July 12, 2013 at 3:39 pm)Red Celt Wrote: Ah, I see now. Well, at least that's been cleared up. You're a moron.

And fuck you too.

(July 12, 2013 at 3:41 pm)Chuck Wrote: Fuck you too.

Said the person in English, claiming the lack of impact of the British Empire.

(July 12, 2013 at 3:35 pm)Chuck Wrote: It isn't, and really wasn't that powerful at all. Not compared to Rome, or the other really great empires.

The minimum threshold of great empire is that it has cleared the world of peer competitors that could threaten its own core security.

Britain was never able to achieve that.

For a while Europe enjoyed a big technological advantage over the rest of the world and it was easy for any European power to stomp on the natives. No big deal for the British can be able to go stomping on India if little netherland can go stomping on Indonesia, or Belgium can go stomping on Congo, or if Spain can go stomping on all of South and Centeral America. But at the core of British empire, Britain was never enduringly secure from other European powers. Even when it was at the height of its power, it was arguable not capable of really facing down and defeating its primary peer competitors.

In the rank of really great world power centers, Britain was second rate.

Rome had plenty of competitors, Rome was sacked by rival civilizations and Rome didn't have as much territory as Britain, neither did the Egyptians so which empires are you talking about which had no rivals and always faced down peer competitors.