Post: #51

Human nature is human nature. I used to have this argument with my wife when I first met her fresh off the boat: NZ kids are indoctrinated to think white British = evil empire. Read up on the Maori and their loving, peaceful ways before the British arrived, the Moriori in particular. All this bluster and bullshit about having their land stolen...just a load of butthurt that a bigger fish entered the pond.

Post: #52

(01-23-2016 04:35 PM)N°6 Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 02:20 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  This reminds me of that essay linked in the migration thread from the Gates of Vienna blog. London is probably the best example of what the globalists/internationalists wish to achieve. It's no accident it's also a center of international finance.

Nail on the head.

I dont get it, could you expand further?

Post: #53

(01-23-2016 04:18 PM)thedarkknight Wrote:  Yet, instead of other ambitious countries with Imperialist ambitions (Germany, Russia, Japan) the British picked on weak, under-industrialised countries instead of other powerful European colonists like France, Spain, Holland, Portugal or Belgium. I have no beef with the British or their monumental Empire but what I wrote is true.

This is completely wrong.

Britain has always fought against the strongest European continental power at the time, in fear of being conquered like in 1066.

For example, in 1588, the British decisively defeated the Spanish Armada, who were the strongest power at the time.

In the Thirty Years War, the British stopped the Habsburgs from taking over Europe.

Afterwards, the British fought against the French, who were the latest strongest continental power, in the Seven Years' War. Then the British again fought against the French, who were led by Napoleon.

Afterwards, you have the British fighting against the Germans in WWI and WWII.

Post: #54

Quote:This is completely wrong.

Britain has always fought against the strongest European continental power at the time, in fear of being conquered like in 1066.

For example, in 1588, the British decisively defeated the Spanish Armada, who were the strongest power at the time.

In the Thirty Years War, the British stopped the Habsburgs from taking over Europe.

Afterwards, the British fought against the French, who were the latest strongest continental power, in the Seven Years' War. Then the British again fought against the French, who were led by Napoleon.

Afterwards, you have the British fighting against the Germans in WWI and WWII.

Britain also had a small scale war with Russia in 1807-1812 (see Treaty of Tilsit) and a massive conflict for Central Asia ("The great game")-as a result Russia got Turkestan (modern Uz,Kaz,Turk,Kirg and Tajikistan) and Britian-Afganistan and parts of Pakistan.

Britain had a number of wars with Holland too.

The only Europen power Britian never had conflicts with was Portugal.

Post: #55

The golden age of the British Empire was one of the great heights of the history of mankind -- indeed, the only one that compares, in its energies, accomplishment, confidence, and forward propulsion, with the current American golden age.

There are few images of the past that have greater potency than that of the impeccably dressed colonial Englishman, wandering about some unspeakably humid or unbearably dry 100 degree hellhole in utter command of his mind and powers, in complete confidence of his ability to exercise control over things on the ground and solve the problems at hand. A couple of handfuls of these characters could run massive countries and keep the trains running on time like no one before or since. And they did it with a dismissive shrug that denoted a complete lack of understanding of how anyone could do any less.

There is very little in the history of the world for an American to look up to; the American stands at the summit. But if one reads something like the great memoir about the voyage of Shackleton's Endurance one is brought up against a strength that is different in quality than the American strength; and -- in some ways -- greater. One looks back across time and across the Atlantic, and sees a human height that was in its own manner more extraordinary than any other.

The complaints about "colonialism" are a wretched species of the ahistorical whining that has infested the thinking of the past century and was never more prevalent than now. What could be more useless than to prattle about the men of the past with a mincing pajama boy's appeal to "ethics", as if that chatter category exists outside of historical contingencies and needs to be measured according to the latest bien pensant standards -- which will themselves crumble at the least contact with reality. Suffice it to say that the British more than any other colonial power left their subjects better off than they found them; and they displayed before the civilizations they conquered a spectacle of competence, diligence and civic virtue so extravagant that some of it could not help but rub off.

I'd like to speak in particular to young and proud Indian guys like Slim Shady. The truth is that the encounter between England and India was one of the great fortuities of human history; it allowed a great civilization that was in its absolute prime to spark life into a much older and much different civilization, that also had greatness in its spirit but had been dormant for too long. Without that spark, and all that India learned at the hands of the English, it would never be on the promising course that it's on now, a course that may well make it one of the great vital powers of the future. India was jolted to life by the British -- and given further life by the now intimate relation of its exiles to America in particular. Young Indians, and young Americans of Indian origin, should never succumb to futile and draining grievance mongering about the past; they should feel confident in their current place and trajectory, enjoy the twinned energies of their native and adopted countries, and understand how the defeats of the past are mere fodder for the victories of the future.

As far as England itself goes, it is of course in a state of abeyance and is far from its great golden age -- though there are qualities in some young Englishmen of today, including some men on this forum, that make one see that the really superb stock is not exhausted quite yet. I take mystical hope from the genius of Led Zeppelin -- as great an eruption of English verve as any that has existed -- and this line from their masterpiece "Achilles' Last Stand". Let Page and Plant have the last word:

Oh Albion remains, sleeping now to rise again

Post: #56

(01-23-2016 04:38 PM)Krieg Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 04:32 PM)thedarkknight Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 04:29 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  It was a time of empire. Many nations were colonised. Any nation weak enough to be colonised would have been worse off under any other ruler. You don't have to love the British for what we did. Many have legitimate grievances. It is telling though that with the exception of Zimbabwe, most of the nation's we colonised are now thriving regionally or globally. The same cannot necessarily be said for former territories of the French, portugese, Spanish, etc.

No arguments here. The fact the Commonwealth exists says something. Where is the Spanish or Belgian equivalent? Doesn't exist because of bad blood/ burnt bridges etc.

Rubbish.Spain has zillions of agreements,treaties and trade unions with Lat.Am. countries.
South Americans need only 1 year to live in Spain in order to get Spanish passport (=EU passport). A french national-10.Spain puts uneducated lazy and poor panchitos above Europeans, in the same way as Brits have been putting Indians above Europeans.

France runs a hardcore Domtom policy.Dutch maintain Antilles as their province and were giving all sort of privileges to Surinamers in the past.Russia does not require visas from Central asians and caucasians at all,everybody is welcome+they have some bizarre Commonwealth of independent nationas thingy going.Etc etc.Tons of examples.

Kreig....a "panchito" (as you call) here. Call me "Sudaca" too if you want. Yes, a lot of shitty SA migrants went to Spain (mostly from Ecuador), but even them were better than the Arabs and africans, ask any spaniard. Even if they had a diferent culture with the Ecuatorians (not so diferent with the Colombians, Argentinians, etc), they shared a lenguage and some common values, and a religion. Also SA migrants tended to be way better workers than the moors. Anyway, a lot of SA migrants came back to SA after the 2008 crisis, and now the most problematic minorities there are the moors and africans.

Post: #57

(01-23-2016 04:18 PM)thedarkknight Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 04:03 PM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 03:32 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  England was worse than Germany. What is happening there is terrible, but I won't say that they don't deserve everything that they are getting. I have no love for England, or anyone that supports colonialism. You can cuck meme all that you want.

The reason colonies became colonized is because they were weak and Britain was strong. Period. Nothing to do with morality or ideology. If Kenya or India were strong enough they would have done the same.

When you think about it, it's nothing short of a miracle that a tiny island off the European coast was able to single-handedly conquer most of the planet, rule over a quarter of the earth's population & create the largest Empire in history.

Yet, instead of other ambitious countries with Imperialist ambitions (Germany, Russia, Japan) the British picked on weak, under-industrialised countries instead of other powerful European colonists like France, Spain, Holland, Portugal or Belgium. I have no beef with the British or their monumental Empire but what I wrote is true. I still maintain they were the most humane of the colonists. Sure as hell wasn't the Spanish.

I agree with you: the weak pick on the strong. That's just the way it goes.

To be fair this isn't exactly true historically speaking. I'm not a fan of the Brits or the genesis of anglo dominant global culture but it was highly successful.

The Brits set up a brilliant system of resource extraction that actually enabled their people to advance in industrial technology and science and sell finished goods to other europeans. They controlled the entire supply chain and perfected the whole concept of industrialization and corporate privatization.

While they were doing this they were funneling science and technology advancements into a powerful navy used to fight off other european powers and territorially advance their position in terms of empire.

Britain, France, and Germany were always in perpetual conflict with other european powers and each other. It's not true that they only picked on lesser countries.

Post: #58

(01-23-2016 06:21 PM)quino_16 Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 04:18 PM)thedarkknight Wrote:  Yet, instead of other ambitious countries with Imperialist ambitions (Germany, Russia, Japan) the British picked on weak, under-industrialised countries instead of other powerful European colonists like France, Spain, Holland, Portugal or Belgium. I have no beef with the British or their monumental Empire but what I wrote is true.

This is completely wrong.

Britain has always fought against the strongest European continental power at the time, in fear of being conquered like in 1066.

For example, in 1588, the British decisively defeated the Spanish Armada, who were the strongest power at the time.

In the Thirty Years War, the British stopped the Habsburgs from taking over Europe.

Afterwards, the British fought against the French, who were the latest strongest continental power, in the Seven Years' War. Then the British again fought against the French, who were led by Napoleon.

Afterwards, you have the British fighting against the Germans in WWI and WWII.

A simple way I have heard it described, England's long term goal in Europe was that of a 'balance of power' on the continent. Whenever any country started to look like they could take over the whole continent of Europe (plus the part of Russian that is to the west of the Urals), then England would ally with the weaker side to prevent this from happening, and maintain a balance of power on the continent.

Post: #59

(01-23-2016 06:21 PM)quino_16 Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 04:18 PM)thedarkknight Wrote:  Yet, instead of other ambitious countries with Imperialist ambitions (Germany, Russia, Japan) the British picked on weak, under-industrialised countries instead of other powerful European colonists like France, Spain, Holland, Portugal or Belgium. I have no beef with the British or their monumental Empire but what I wrote is true.

This is completely wrong.

Britain has always fought against the strongest European continental power at the time, in fear of being conquered like in 1066.

For example, in 1588, the British decisively defeated the Spanish Armada, who were the strongest power at the time.

In the Thirty Years War, the British stopped the Habsburgs from taking over Europe.

Afterwards, the British fought against the French, who were the latest strongest continental power, in the Seven Years' War. Then the British again fought against the French, who were led by Napoleon.

Afterwards, you have the British fighting against the Germans in WWI and WWII.

World Champions close to a thousand years on the trott.

Take that America!

Post: #60

(01-23-2016 07:14 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  The golden age of the British Empire was one of the great heights of the history of mankind -- indeed, the only one that compares, in its energies, accomplishment, confidence, and forward propulsion, with the current American golden age.

There are few images of the past that have greater potency than that of the impeccably dressed colonial Englishman, wandering about some unspeakably humid or unbearably dry 100 degree hellhole in utter command of his mind and powers, in complete confidence of his ability to exercise control over things on the ground and solve the problems at hand. A couple of handfuls of these characters could run massive countries and keep the trains running on time like no one before or since. And they did it with a dismissive shrug that denoted a complete lack of understanding of how anyone could do any less.

There is very little in the history of the world for an American to look up to; the American stands at the summit. But if one reads something like the great memoir about the voyage of Shackleton's Endurance one is brought up against a strength that is different in quality than the American strength; and -- in some ways -- greater. One looks back across time and across the Atlantic, and sees a human height that was in its own manner more extraordinary than any other.

The complaints about "colonialism" are a wretched species of the ahistorical whining that has infested the thinking of the past century and was never more prevalent than now. What could be more useless than to prattle about the men of the past with a mincing pajama boy's appeal to "ethics", as if that chatter category exists outside of historical contingencies and needs to be measured according to the latest bien pensant standards -- which will themselves crumble at the least contact with reality. Suffice it to say that the British more than any other colonial power left their subjects better off than they found them; and they displayed before the civilizations they conquered a spectacle of competence, diligence and civic virtue so extravagant that some of it could not help but rub off.

I'd like to speak in particular to young and proud Indian guys like Slim Shady. The truth is that the encounter between England and India was one of the great fortuities of human history; it allowed a great civilization that was in its absolute prime to spark life into a much older and much different civilization, that also had greatness in its spirit but had been dormant for too long. Without that spark, and all that India learned at the hands of the English, it would never be on the promising course that it's on now, a course that may well make it one of the great vital powers of the future. India was jolted to life by the British -- and given further life by the now intimate relation of its exiles to America in particular. Young Indians, and young Americans of Indian origin, should never succumb to futile and draining grievance mongering about the past; they should feel confident in their current place and trajectory, enjoy the twinned energies of their native and adopted countries, and understand how the defeats of the past are mere fodder for the victories of the future.

As far as England itself goes, it is of course in a state of abeyance and is far from its great golden age -- though there are qualities in some young Englishmen of today, including some men on this forum, that make one see that the really superb stock is not exhausted quite yet. I take mystical hope from the genius of Led Zeppelin -- as great an eruption of English verve as any that has existed -- and this line from their masterpiece "Achilles' Last Stand". Let Page and Plant have the last word:

Oh Albion remains, sleeping now to rise again

Genocide, ethnic cleansing, wars, slavery, torture, internment, murder, exploitation, expropriation of land from the natives......

and that was just Ireland.

Post: #61

(01-24-2016 06:19 AM)Traktor Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 07:14 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  The golden age of the British Empire was one of the great heights of the history of mankind -- indeed, the only one that compares, in its energies, accomplishment, confidence, and forward propulsion, with the current American golden age.

There are few images of the past that have greater potency than that of the impeccably dressed colonial Englishman, wandering about some unspeakably humid or unbearably dry 100 degree hellhole in utter command of his mind and powers, in complete confidence of his ability to exercise control over things on the ground and solve the problems at hand. A couple of handfuls of these characters could run massive countries and keep the trains running on time like no one before or since. And they did it with a dismissive shrug that denoted a complete lack of understanding of how anyone could do any less.

There is very little in the history of the world for an American to look up to; the American stands at the summit. But if one reads something like the great memoir about the voyage of Shackleton's Endurance one is brought up against a strength that is different in quality than the American strength; and -- in some ways -- greater. One looks back across time and across the Atlantic, and sees a human height that was in its own manner more extraordinary than any other.

The complaints about "colonialism" are a wretched species of the ahistorical whining that has infested the thinking of the past century and was never more prevalent than now. What could be more useless than to prattle about the men of the past with a mincing pajama boy's appeal to "ethics", as if that chatter category exists outside of historical contingencies and needs to be measured according to the latest bien pensant standards -- which will themselves crumble at the least contact with reality. Suffice it to say that the British more than any other colonial power left their subjects better off than they found them; and they displayed before the civilizations they conquered a spectacle of competence, diligence and civic virtue so extravagant that some of it could not help but rub off.

I'd like to speak in particular to young and proud Indian guys like Slim Shady. The truth is that the encounter between England and India was one of the great fortuities of human history; it allowed a great civilization that was in its absolute prime to spark life into a much older and much different civilization, that also had greatness in its spirit but had been dormant for too long. Without that spark, and all that India learned at the hands of the English, it would never be on the promising course that it's on now, a course that may well make it one of the great vital powers of the future. India was jolted to life by the British -- and given further life by the now intimate relation of its exiles to America in particular. Young Indians, and young Americans of Indian origin, should never succumb to futile and draining grievance mongering about the past; they should feel confident in their current place and trajectory, enjoy the twinned energies of their native and adopted countries, and understand how the defeats of the past are mere fodder for the victories of the future.

As far as England itself goes, it is of course in a state of abeyance and is far from its great golden age -- though there are qualities in some young Englishmen of today, including some men on this forum, that make one see that the really superb stock is not exhausted quite yet. I take mystical hope from the genius of Led Zeppelin -- as great an eruption of English verve as any that has existed -- and this line from their masterpiece "Achilles' Last Stand". Let Page and Plant have the last word:

Oh Albion remains, sleeping now to rise again

Genocide, ethnic cleansing, wars, slavery, torture, internment, murder, exploitation, expropriation of land from the natives......

and that was just Ireland.

No empire is without its senseless violence. Rome, Egypt, Alexander's Greek empire, Persia, every Chinese dynasty, Aztecs, Spain, the list goes on

What's your point?

Post: #62

His point is it's not fair, man.

He's trolling hard in a lot of these threads honestly.

Post: #63

(01-24-2016 06:33 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 06:19 AM)Traktor Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 07:14 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  The golden age of the British Empire was one of the great heights of the history of mankind -- indeed, the only one that compares, in its energies, accomplishment, confidence, and forward propulsion, with the current American golden age.

There are few images of the past that have greater potency than that of the impeccably dressed colonial Englishman, wandering about some unspeakably humid or unbearably dry 100 degree hellhole in utter command of his mind and powers, in complete confidence of his ability to exercise control over things on the ground and solve the problems at hand. A couple of handfuls of these characters could run massive countries and keep the trains running on time like no one before or since. And they did it with a dismissive shrug that denoted a complete lack of understanding of how anyone could do any less.

There is very little in the history of the world for an American to look up to; the American stands at the summit. But if one reads something like the great memoir about the voyage of Shackleton's Endurance one is brought up against a strength that is different in quality than the American strength; and -- in some ways -- greater. One looks back across time and across the Atlantic, and sees a human height that was in its own manner more extraordinary than any other.

The complaints about "colonialism" are a wretched species of the ahistorical whining that has infested the thinking of the past century and was never more prevalent than now. What could be more useless than to prattle about the men of the past with a mincing pajama boy's appeal to "ethics", as if that chatter category exists outside of historical contingencies and needs to be measured according to the latest bien pensant standards -- which will themselves crumble at the least contact with reality. Suffice it to say that the British more than any other colonial power left their subjects better off than they found them; and they displayed before the civilizations they conquered a spectacle of competence, diligence and civic virtue so extravagant that some of it could not help but rub off.

I'd like to speak in particular to young and proud Indian guys like Slim Shady. The truth is that the encounter between England and India was one of the great fortuities of human history; it allowed a great civilization that was in its absolute prime to spark life into a much older and much different civilization, that also had greatness in its spirit but had been dormant for too long. Without that spark, and all that India learned at the hands of the English, it would never be on the promising course that it's on now, a course that may well make it one of the great vital powers of the future. India was jolted to life by the British -- and given further life by the now intimate relation of its exiles to America in particular. Young Indians, and young Americans of Indian origin, should never succumb to futile and draining grievance mongering about the past; they should feel confident in their current place and trajectory, enjoy the twinned energies of their native and adopted countries, and understand how the defeats of the past are mere fodder for the victories of the future.

As far as England itself goes, it is of course in a state of abeyance and is far from its great golden age -- though there are qualities in some young Englishmen of today, including some men on this forum, that make one see that the really superb stock is not exhausted quite yet. I take mystical hope from the genius of Led Zeppelin -- as great an eruption of English verve as any that has existed -- and this line from their masterpiece "Achilles' Last Stand". Let Page and Plant have the last word:

Oh Albion remains, sleeping now to rise again

Genocide, ethnic cleansing, wars, slavery, torture, internment, murder, exploitation, expropriation of land from the natives......

and that was just Ireland.

No empire is without its senseless violence. Rome, Egypt, Alexander's Greek empire, Persia, every Chinese dynasty, Aztecs, Spain, the list goes on

What's your point?

My point being, the Irish are not the only ones who would have something to say about the 'senseless violence' visited on them by the British Empire.

Post: #64

(01-24-2016 06:37 AM)Traktor Wrote:  My point being, the Irish are not the only ones who would have something to say about the 'senseless violence' visited on them by the British Empire.

And?

Tacitus — 'Great empires are not maintained by timidity'

The fact that humanity can progress today without a significant amount of violence is quite incredible. This wasn't the case in the past.

Post: #65

I feel like I've written this a 1000 times before...

As an Englishman of immediate Irish and English descent (and proud of both heritages), I feel I am well positioned to comment on this impartially.

Irish "history" is 9/10 times simply made up nonsense.

The Irish need to consign what if left of their victim-mentality to the wayside and grow up.

The Imperial British were no more or less guilty than any other nation of their time. We just did it better and more efficiently than the rest.


I see most of the butthurt from the former colonials not as a hatred of the British...it's a self loathing resulting from the fact that such a microscopic spec of a country could subdue and colonise their ancestors so easily.

Post: #66

As far as I know, lower class native Brits weren't treated very well during colonial times in their own country either, children working in coal mines and sweeping chimeneys comes to mind.

Post: #67

Lizard's post was, as ever, pure poetry.

My only regret was that I didn't put some Elgar on before reading it.

Post: #68

(01-24-2016 08:32 AM)Praetor Lupus Wrote:  Lizard's post was, as ever, pure poetry.

My only regret was that I didn't put some Elgar on before reading it.

It is not Elgar, but this bit of Holst (and these images) may do the trick --

Post: #69

^^

Damn we do pomp and ceremony like no others.

Brought a tear to my eye.

I vow to thee my country always does.


EDIT: Those images are of my England. The country and people I grew up in and with. Breaks my heart what's happened to us.

Post: #70

(01-24-2016 08:02 AM)scotian Wrote:  As far as I know, lower class native Brits weren't treated very well during colonial times in their own country either, children working in coal mines and sweeping chimeneys comes to mind.

They still aren't. Britain has got one of the lowest social mobility ranks in the whole Europe.In fact, social mobility in modern Britain is lower then it was in 1918.

I am not a big fan of socialism. But IMO social mobility is a key element of a successful society.

Post: #71

Quote:I see most of the butthurt from the former colonials not as a hatred of the British...it's a self loathing resulting from the fact that such a microscopic spec of a country could subdue and colonise their ancestors so easily.

Post: #72

Re: Monty Python

Post: #73

(01-24-2016 06:19 AM)Traktor Wrote:  Genocide, ethnic cleansing, wars, slavery, torture, internment, murder, exploitation, expropriation of land from the natives......

You and the others that repeat this narrative trashing England, America or other European "colonizers" are members of the unpaid and unthinking army of SJWs no different from the fat green hair protester screaming against thin models. The actual goal you are working towards, unknown to you, is to stop thought. Once thought is stopped, the powers who actually use the forced techniques you list above can take over. Since one horrifying buzzword is not enough, I have noticed that you guys have taken to using many at once. You used 9. Didn't have any effect on the actual history and accomplishments of England. Back to the Roget's thesaurus for you! (an English invention).

Post: #74

(01-23-2016 03:32 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  England was worse than Germany. What is happening there is terrible, but I won't say that they don't deserve everything that they are getting. I have no love for England, or anyone that supports colonialism. You can cuck meme all that you want.

This kind of anger against British colonialism seems to be an American-Indian trait, as none of the British-Indians I know in real life (including bojangles from this very forum) give a shit about it from what I gather. In fact, Indians (well, their descendants) are among the most plain speaking people in my opinion - especially about Islam. Hindus (most of them aren't religious apart from at cultural events - like non religious Brits at weddings etc) in particular are so integrated into British society that I don't even really see them as 'different'. They tend to be middle class most of the time, which I guess makes them different from the majority of other minorities, including black people. One of my best mates is Indian and I've worked with loads as well, I just hope they don't get targeted by the right (on a street protest level) just because they share an ethnic group with Muslims.

That's why it pisses me off when the media call Tommy Robinson 'racist', despite him bringing attention to the fact that it wasn't just white girls being groomed by Muslims but Hindu and Sikh girls as well. The media only sees people as 'brown' and therefore part of that group...these progressives are the true racists. Same in the States with Spanish speakers, lump them in one box for identity politics reasons.

That said, for all my love for the Indian community...their young women can be unpleasant to deal with. Very stuck up!

Post: #75

(01-24-2016 07:20 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  I feel like I've written this a 1000 times before...

As an Englishman of immediate Irish and English descent (and proud of both heritages), I feel I am well positioned to comment on this impartially.

Irish "history" is 9/10 times simply made up nonsense.

The Irish need to consign what if left of their victim-mentality to the wayside and grow up.

The Imperial British were no more or less guilty than any other nation of their time. We just did it better and more efficiently than the rest.


I see most of the butthurt from the former colonials not as a hatred of the British...it's a self loathing resulting from the fact that such a microscopic spec of a country could subdue and colonise their ancestors so easily.

I'm Irish and I agree that some Irish people still hold onto this victim mentality towards the British which frustrates me.
I grew up close to the border with Northern Ireland and there was while not exactly a support for the IRA, a tacit approval of sorts for what they were doing.
It was akin to what you see in the Muslim world where millions of Muslims seem to have little issue with sharia law, while enjoying the fruits of Sharia free society in the West.
When I was taught History in school, a lot of it was about the struggle for Irish independence from Britain and the Brits were painted as the evil oppressor to a large extent.
That said, there's no doubt they did some terrible things to Irish people over the centuries, the plantation of Ulster, the various sieges of Irish towns and cities, especially during Cromwell's time, was (if History is to be believed) particularly brutal with thousands of innocents slaughtered.
Some Irish people can't get past the likes of Cromwell and the '800 years of oppression' narrative (which is I think personally somewhat exaggerated).
The actions of the 'Black and Tans' also didn't help the image of the British Empire in Ireland, indeed my own grandparents had to defend their homes from these low lifes.
But there was of course also benefits to Britain ruling Ireland for so long, something which is rarely dwelled upon, in discussions about British involvement in Ireland. (I might come back to this later)
I sometimes wonder what Ireland would have been like now if we had learned to live with the Brits and foster some sort of alliance with them rather than the bloody wars leading up to independence.