Alex the British Empire was amazing I agree the list of modern day countries that have benefited from our introduction of modern engineering, medicine and societal organisation is brilliant I agree.

Your comparison between the British Empire and the Falkland Islands is wrong as the Falkland Islands have never been a colony they are a British Overseas Territory in the same way as Jersey, Cayman Islands, Bermuda and a bunch of other small Islands are. They have their own government and we are responsible for their security so it's entirely legally possible if the Argentines start being nice to them they would vote to join with Argentina.

You Forgot a few ,USA, South Africa, Egypt.

Strangely if you were to ask many of them if they would welcome the return of British governance many would say yes because many people in those countries think that the UK did a better job at governing them than the various governments that they elected to office or military takeovers over the decades since independence.

Hong Kong people begged to remain part of the United Kingdom and I remember seeing some people have tears in their eyes when we handed the land back to the Chinese Government.

Sierra Leon I remember a few years ago they welcome the British Army, sent their to help evacuate British citizens, with open harms, with some not only calling them to stopped the rebel forces, which the commander of the forces decided to do without direct orders from London to do so, but also to topple their own corrupt government an d take direct control of the country, which we did not do. That was also a Blair war which was successful and which many people seem to have forgotten about.

The question might be asked how great of a job did Britain do with its Empire.Now I'm not talking about today,with the Commonwealth,thats a whole different story.But the building,and through the 19th century,to say 1960.

From the very beginning you'd have to say,the first example of the British Empire in action was Ireland.So that should be our first example of the British Empire:

There was an unrelieved record of oppression,massacre,racism (as the term was used then)and population expulsions.Then when you would think British rule couldn't get any worse came the famine.In 1841 Ireland's population was around 8.2 million people,in the 1920's it was only 4.2 million,and today around 6 million.From around a third or more of England's population,today its 10% of England's population.More than half the population,and the increases that would have been were gone.Over a million died,and a million fled the Island during the famine.Then with the economy continuously held back by British rule,year by year it deceased more.Maybe if the British had treated Ireland ,at least, as well as Scotland was treated ,things might have gone differently.But the Irish were guilty of the crime of being Catholic, and to the British less than human.A good book to show the "glory " of British rule in Ireland is "Trinity"by Leon Uris.After countless revolts for freedom,Ireland finally gained a portion of freedom in 1921.But even here the British couldn't stop from harming Ireland.During the 1600's, to dilute the native Irish Catholic's,they settled Protestant settlers in Northern Ireland,and to prevent these from joining with the other people,they made sure that they were given privileges as a master race to make sure to keep them loyal.When Ireland became Independent they split the North away and kept it as part of Britain.Including in that region,a Catholic Irish minority of 44%.A group that, close to half the population,were second class citizens in their own country.The violence springing from these wrongs has continued at various levels from then till today,with bombs going off a few days ago.Had the British even at that late date of 1921 done the right thing and freed the entire country,how many lives would have been saved in Ireland,and Britain itself.

Some facts about the British Empire:

It was the top power in the world from Napoleon to Hitler, from 1815 to 1942. The war against Hitler left it broke and worn out and it fell apart in the years that followed.

During the war its wealth and position went to America, a daughter of the empire. Many regard present American world power as the British Empire II. New York and Washington have simply taken the place of London.

Although the rise of industry started in Britain, it did not spread to its empire – most of the empire remained shockingly backward and poor. But by the 1940s industry had spread to Europe, America and Japan. So when war came in the 1940s it found that it was no longer the mighty power that it once had been. The world had changed.

Hitler and Gandhi, more than anyone else, brought the empire down. But it had fallen behind in many ways – in teaching science, in building arms, in spreading industry, in freeing trade – and so it was only a matter of time before it fell.

Bob again a lot of figures there, mostly wrong but the bottom line as an England man I personally wish for Independence from Northern Island, Wales and Scotland. All they do is suck our tax pounds from England and complain. So we can agree on one point that Northern Island should be independent.

Tim,

I'm curious which "figures" you are referring to.

Uncle Bob,

I like the fact that when complaining about the British and/or English you use Britain/British and England/English interchangably which makes it hard to work out to whom your hatred is truly directed. You neatly mix the population numbers for England, Britain and the British Isles and just as neatly mix the figures for Ireland the island and Ireland the Republic to create a false picture and miscalculate your percentages: population of the British Isles in 1841 census: 26.7 million (England and Wales: 15.9m; Scotland: 2.6m; Ireland:8.2m). The Irish counted for around a third (true).

Now, the population of the British Isles is 68.5 million (England: 51.5m; Scotland: 5.2m; Wales: 3.0; Northern Ireland: 1.8m; Republic of Ireland: 6.2m). The island of Ireland (NI and ROI) is around 8 million (about 1841 levels for the entire island). Around 12% of the total population of the British Isles (and a considerable drop). But around 16% of the size of the English population.

You neglect that the first poison between England and Ireland came under the Norman King William the Conqueror (a Catholic - as Protestantism wasn't around). You also forget Oliver Cromwell who did most of the poisoning and is not necessarily a true reflexion of British opinion as he seized power by regicide and coup d'etat. You also neglect that a lot of the Scots were Catholic and forget such events as the Highland Clearances.

You also neglect that the English sent to live in Ireland were from the English ruling classes not to dilute the Catholics but to over-lord them. Ireland already had a large number of non-Conformist Christians/ Presbyterians who had gone there to flee persecution for not being Conformist Anglicans in mainland Britain. The laws created against the Catholic Irish were also designed to equally crush the non-Conformists who'd settled there in exile. The Catholics and non-Conformists found common cause with each other and violently rebelled against their Anglican English overlords. (So, Martin McGuiness and Ian Paisley sitting together was not without precedent!)

(I can only assume you used the term 'master race' to draw some invidious comparison with the Nazis.)

In Northern Ireland Roman Catholicism has been steadily and continually growing and is now at its highest proportion: in 1920 it was around 35% of the population of NI; currently it's around 41%.

If Britain had done the 'right thing' in 1921 what would you have suggested for the million non-Catholics remaining in Northern Ireland? Mass Deportation or Ethnic Cleansing perhaps? Or maybe they could have stayed and created a violent separatist movement like the Spanish Basques and demanded complete autonomy like the states of the Former Republic of Yugoslavia or South Sudan. Maybe the whole country could have been plunged into an even bloodier civil war?

When the history's this complex it's very hard to shoe-horn it to fit a simple anti-British rant.

Most importantly you omit that it wasn't much fun being British in Britain if you weren't of the right social class (or religion - many British were Catholics but couldn't openly say until the mid-19th Century). Forget what you see in the costume dramas.... the ordinary British tended to be very poor and had few real rights. There was a minority elite who enjoyed all the privileges of Empire while the rest had to stay silent and know their place.

And as for your 'facts' (I use the term loosely) about the British Empire.... well.... !

As someone of Anglo-Welsh-Irish heritage with half-Indian cousins, and some of whose ancestors left during the Famine, personally I don't seem to find the British anywhere near as objectionable as you seem to think I should.

It's not its property to have back, the most you can argue is that Spain should have its property back.

This really is kind of a non-story. Argentina, even thought totally believing in the rightness of its claims.Have no thoughts of kidnapping or killing Prince William.Argentina is a democracy and a cultured nation.That's just something that the Argentines,while they might could,wouldn't do.Argentina has had a long history with Britain.From the early days British immigrants have come to Argentina.British investors built railroad lines,and invested in land.In the south,Patagonia,many Welsh settled on the land.All and all, probably several hundred thousand British citizens have settled and made there home in Argentina.

Now we come to the Malvinas/Falkland issue:

Through the early centuries of Spanish rule in the Rio De La Plata region, now known as Argentina,the Spanish and the local people had claim to the Islands.There were Spanish,French,and British explorers and ships that landed on the Islands,but the first to really settle there were the French,though the Rio De La Plata,never renounced their claims to sovereignty to the Malvinas.Not finding wealth enough for them to develop the Islands,the French left,turning them over to the Spanish.After the Napoleonic invasion of Spain,the Spanish withdrew from the Islands leaving a few local settlers and a plaque declaring that they were part of the Spanish Empire.That region of the Spanish Empire,was governed through the Viceroy of the Rio De La PLata,or Argentina.After gaining independence from Spain the new nation called the United Provinces of De La Plata ,or as we will call it from now on Argentina,gained rights to the claims of Spain in the region.While because Argentina was very large, and the early years were unsettled ,with many political disputes,Argentina allowed settlers to settle in the Malvinas under contract from the government,in 1820 and in 1824.Many of the settlers were Europeans, including British citizens. In 1833 Britain seizes control of the Islands during a period of Argentine weakness,and only a few Argentines were allowed to remain.Antonio Rivero led a band of guerrillas on the Islands.Settlers were brought from Britain,and populated the Islands.Today there are around 3 thousand settlers on the Islands.During no part of the British control of the Malvinas has Argentina renounced their sovereignty over the Islands.After countless appeals to Britain to return the Malvinas Argentina is still waiting for justice to be done.The military several years before 1982 had illegally taken power in Argentina,and the nation suffered under a dictatorship.But which by then had lost its popular support.The Generals hoping to regain popularity invaded and seized back the Malvinas.The Generals having little world support for that action,were defeated by a British force sent to take the Islands back again.But again,Argentina now restored to democracy has never given up their claim for their seized property to be restored to the nation.

In the past there was a bad tendency in the First World,to devalue the claims of nations in the so-called Second and Third World.To feel that not being great powers or wealthy states that somehow they are lesser peoples.But those days are over now.The Latin American states are democracies and are developing a new confidence, that they too, can have a bright future.Argentina has good relations with the nations of the world and wishes to continue to develop its economy for its citizens.

Nothing in the past,present,or the future,has negated the legal claim to the Malvinas Islands.I have an example that will show Argentina's stand on this issue.Imagine if Britain had been a weak state in the 19th century and Russia had seized the Shetland Islands,expelled the population there.But brought in a few thousand Russians and claimed that since now the new population was Russian instead of British,Britain had no claim to the Islands.I'm guessing that Britain wouldn't accept that anymore than Argentina does.It took China a long time to regain the lost territories of Hong Kong and Macau,but regain them they did.In the future I believe Britain will see the foolishness of trying to hold illegally,Islands that are not theirs.Islands that are 8,000 miles from them,that depend on connections with Argentina.Unless they want to shoulder the expense of supporting a population of only 3 thousand forever at a huge cost.They gain nothing positive from holding the Islands,and only complicate relations with other nations by doing so.So then what would be the best solution to the problem.There are several possibilities open.One would be to work with Argentina for a peaceful reunion of the two areas.With the current population to remain as citizens of Argentina,or possibly with a dual citizenship for anyone that wanted it. Another option ,would be the transfer of the current population to another part of the British territories,St Helena,and Asuncion Islands come to mind,or even back to Britain itself,with compensation for any left property.The two nations,Britain and Argentina,have much to gain together as friends,but this one issue seems to stand in the way.

Bob such a long article which obviously took you some time so shame you didn't do a bit of basic fact checking before posting it.

There was no native population to displace. The local population has lived there for hundreds of years so actually what Argentina is proposing is ethnic cleansing and forced colonisation.

All of this is hot air and we'll ignore them. If they want to fight militarily then we'll respond militarily however I would suggest this time it would be better if we took the fight to main land Argentina.

So Tim,

If you know differently ,you need to talk to the Wikipedia editors then,since thats where the facts came from,lol.

idk...might felt pretty righteous when we were on operation enduring freedom killing terrorists...

so sometimes might is right...

Mike it's the Falklands in English and we're on an English language board so let's stick with that.

The modern day English have *nothing* to do with colonialism it's like saying modern day Germans are all Nazi's because their ancestors were. We are currently a medium sized regional nation with a proud history and absolutely zero colonial ambitions.

If the Falkland islands had a population of Argentinian's and we ruled them then I would agree it should be reverted to Argentinian control however we wouldn't be in this situation as all colonies were reverted in the 1960's. The issue is that they are British people which is why Cameron is correct to say the Argentinian's are trying to colonise the islands. There was no native population so the only claim the Argentinian's have is that it's closer to them than us.

UK has said for the last 30 or so years that the case should be settle in the court. The problem is Argentina do not want that because they know the court would rule they have no right to bring the case to the court in the first place, as they never owned them in the first place, Spain or the French have more right to the Islands than Argentina, and the Argies know it.

Possible even ruling only the Spanish or possibly the French have ownership rights to the Islands and not the UK or Argentina.

Argentina did not exist When Britain first found the Island and the Ship claimed them for the British Crown. and Spain stole them of us first but setting up a somewhat temporary base their, and the French has some history with the Island to.

But I am all for letting a judge at ICJ decide that for him or her self . An let make that judgement fully binding on both countries.

To David Knowles,

I'm not sure if Argentina would go to court over their territory or not.But I'm almost positive Ireland would be willing to work with you ,and go to court over Northern Ireland.At the very least the nationalist counties would be returned.So if Cameron would call Dublin they can start to work tomorrow.

They have. They're all British colonists and chose to stay British.

I'm curious, Bob..who do you imagine would be left on the islands?

That how it will go, even if the UK does some sort of deal with the Argentinians, I see the Islanders declaring full independence from the UK and Argentina.

An with the Oil industry they would easily be the riches nation in the world per capita.

Hal Sherman says,

"I'm curious, Bob..who do you imagine would be left on the islands?"

I suggest the Argentine President and David Cameron,have a Tango contest to settle the issue.The winner takes the Malvina's,the loser has to live on the islands.

HA HA that would work.

"If the Argentinians invade the Falklands again it will be time to unleash the nukes on Buenos Aires."

I notice that the people on these pages that are always talking about Iran and other countries threatening people.How awful it would be for them to have nuclear weapons because they would be the first one's to use them.They are the same kind of people,threatening to use nuclear weapons themselves.Leads me to the obvious conclusion that they just want to be the only ones with those weapons.And to be able to threaten others with them themselves.

So you're forgetting their tiffs with Chile and Uruguay? Convenient memory you have.

If the rise of Nationalism was based on money,there would be no Nationalism.The Poles would have been happy to be divided between Prussia,Russia,and Austria,Transylvania,would still be part of Austria-Hungary,Mexico would have wanted all the nation to have been annexed to the US,and Canada would have joined the US.The UK wouldn't resist the EU as much,the Czechs would have stayed Austrian,and Slovakia would not have split from Czechia,The Chinese wouldn't want to reunite with Taiwan as they do.Money has nothing to do with a claim of justice.The current and future failure of international money capitalism,as happened with international Communism,is their inability to understand national emotions.

True for the Argentinians and also true and not true for the Falklanders who consider both as part of their heritage: British territory and nationality for more than 150 years; and, wealth, through their export of sheep related products as well as internal consumption. I don´t hear Mexico claiming back territories annexed to the USA by force, do you??

Actually,in Mexico they harbor suspicions of the US because of that past,and are very nationalistic.But the point was, if it was money that determined what people should be.Then when the US wanted all of Mexico,not just the territory they seized .Mexicans would have welcomed that and not totally opposed the idea.

America had all of Mexico, Uncle Bob, more than once. We didn't want it and gave it back.

Darthdon,

You need to read a little history.The "manifest destiny" thinking in those times very much wanted to annex all of Mexico if we could have.

No, Uncle Bob, you need to do more than skim your history. The U.S. got out of Mexico because of racism and anti-Catholicism, ( the same reason the U.S. never offered the Philippines or Puerto Rico the option of becoming a Territory).

Darthdon,

"No, Uncle Bob, you need to do more than skim your history. The U.S. got out of Mexico because of racism and anti-Catholicism, ( the same reason the U.S. never offered the Philippines or Puerto Rico the option of becoming a Territory)"

Wikipedia:

Manifest destiny and mission in American history: a reinterpretation

"With American successes on the battlefield, by the summer of 1847 there were calls for the annexation of "All Mexico," particularly among Eastern Democrats, who argued that bringing Mexico into the Union was the best way to ensure future peace in the region."

Why the US didn't annex all of Mexico has many answers.My point was that we wanted to at one time and Mexicans opposed the idea.

"Puerto Rico's political relationship with the U.S. has been a continuing source of debate in Puerto Rico, the United States Congress, and the United Nations. The issue revolves around whether Puerto Rico should remain a U.S. territory, become a U.S. state, or become an independent country.

"

Uncle Bob

Puerto Rico is not a U.S. Territory, (look up the official definition), it is a Commonwealth, just as the Philippines were. "Manifest destiny", in spite of what you have read on that most unreliable of sources, Wikipedia, did not exist in 1847. It was a feature of Teddy Roosevelt's foreign policy.

As I posted before, it was not because the Mexicans objected. We never let that get in the way before or since, (just ask any Indian Tribe).

To Darthdon,

Sorry man,Unless you want to post better sources,I'll have to believe Wikipedia,and their sources.Most historians read today weren't around in 1847 either.Thats why they are historians,they study history.

As for Puerto Rico,yes today it is called a Commonweath,but that was not always the case.

"In 1950, the U.S. Congress granted Puerto Ricans the right to organize a constitutional convention via a referendum that gave them the option of voting their preference, "yes" or "no", on a proposed U.S. law that would organize Puerto Rico as a "commonwealth" that would continue United States sovereignty over Puerto Rico and its people."

Also from Teddy Roosevelt on what he wanted for Puerto Rico:

"During an address to the Puerto Rican legislature in 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt recommended that Puerto Ricans become U.S. citizen"

And a nation of 7 million that was known would fight,is a little more than an Indian Tribe.

Your arguments are based on the mistaken belief that your superficial view of history is correct. It is not.

That racism and anti-Catholicism were big factors is a fact, along with the slavery issue. Mexico had outlawed slavery and the slave-holding South didn't want the admission of Mexico into the Union as it would have upset the balance between the free and slave States.

As for Mexico being a nation that would fight, we had just beaten them, and more easily than some Indian tribes, (we never did beat the Seminoles).

As I said before, your wishful thinking and Wikipedia are no substitute for the facts.

p.s. Puerto Ricans are U.S. Citizens.

I doubt in the near future, if anytime ,we would elect a Muslim President.Though people did used to say that about a Catholic President too.Then along came JFK.But oh,wait a minute,you didn't mean that seriously,that was just a crack about President Obama.Repeating the right-wing lies about him being Muslim.Funny how during the whole election,they had time to attack him on his name and didn't.Now when their grasping for weapons to attack him on,here comes that lie.Next they'll be saying he's an alien from Mars.

It was a colonisation, the people of Bengal should blame their leaders at the time for not organisation their society to resist if it was so bad.

You can't draw a comparison between Ireland and Falklands, I would agree Northern Ireland should go it's own way and ideally join with Ireland itself if they want to or become fully independent but the Falklands are a single homo genus society unlike Ireland which is split by religion.

Tim-"Falklands are a single homo genus society"

Yes,all 3000 of them.

Tim-"It was a colonisation, the people of Bengal should blame their leaders at the time for not organisation their society to resist if it was so bad."

Right,and if a band of 30 outlaws break into my house at night and rob me,its my fault for not fighting off those 30 felons.Never a good idea to blame the victim.