Jordan Peterson | The British Empire (& 21st Century Britain)

[@prof.peterson6639]

Links to Dr. Jordan Peterson's books on Amazon: Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: amzn.to/2Zut6gf 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: amzn.to/3qNV6XW Maps of Meaning: amzn.to/3k4lF8K These are Amazon Affiliate links, and purchasing through them will earn me a small commission.

[@christopherjones67]

If you live in peace and democracy then thank the British Empire.

[@mariabolt3881]

He's right, The Brits are disasociating themselves from their greatest ability to debate with civilitaty and self deprecation our own faults with humour, so that truth shines and we all learn.

[@magswoody7892]

Being English I feel exactly the same way, I can't believe what is happening it goes against everything we have ever stood for, political correctness and identity politics are toxic for free society.

[@BWFCLVAREY]

As an Englishman, who lives and works with my fellow English people, I can say in real life we still say what we want, there are horror stories but people will always be anti PC

[@tomben6180]

This

[@egstar1235]

We have speech laws that have seen people be fined for jokes?

[@leesaunders1930]

anyone can f$#k off if they don't like what I say (which is the truth by the way) 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

[@Englishman_and_mountains]

@@egstar1235 yes but not the people

[@leemerewether]

I work with a gang on building sites and the male banter never changes unless there's a woman around and suddenly im aware i have to be aware.

[@tomben6180]

Working class English here. Lover JP, will never give in, it’s not happening day to day outside of extremes but we’l never stop what we’re saying. Scotland is more fucked.

[@madyin3509]

You think Scots will ever stop being offensive 🤣 these laws aren’t truly enforced… yet. But the foundations of the dangers that could come from this legislation have already been placed, which is upsetting. Scots grow up abusing themselves and everyone around then, it’s just the way we are, but we face a danger of this being stopped and because of this our identity is under threat.

[@Englishman_and_mountains]

@@madyin3509 you could never stop people saying what they please but the authorities can charge you or even ruin your life for it. The face that Scotland have this stubbornness about them that the ( which English also have) is the problem! Sturgeon will pick away bit by bit at the freedom of Scots. The irony of "saor alba" is outstanding and a little bit scary at the same time! Good luck Scotland.🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

[@leesaunders1930]

@@Englishman_and_mountains then the Scots ought to get rid of smelly sturgeon fish instead of giving her power every election.

[@fiveninenowNOW]

@@Englishman_and_mountains so wait are you with Sturgeon or against her?

[@Englishman_and_mountains]

@@fiveninenowNOW I'm not Scottish I'm English so I'm not for or against her. I just see how she's ruining Scotland making rules and decisions to make Scotland less Scottish in the disguise of "unity". She doesn't care about Scotland she cares about being in control and that means independence. Why would she want to ban kilts on Scottish TV? why would she take their freedom bit by bit. She has people that obsessed and angry that they aren't noticing the harm she's doing. If I was Scottish I definitely wouldn't vote for her.

[@seamusdoherty]

The ban on Little Britain sums up what he is saying.

[@CyborgHyperdrive]

Yeah but mate come on. Have you watched that piece of shit show recently. It hasn't aged well. I agree with what JP is saying but that show is bad taste in its own merits. Never mind the "hate speech"

[@Englishman_and_mountains]

@@CyborgHyperdrive no one has the right not to be offended. And bad taste has nothing to do with it you obviously can't see what's happening I'm guessing you're a lefty snowflake.

[@OscarDirlwood]

@@CyborgHyperdrive The show, as low brow as it was, made jabs at all forms of British society. It's not like it was making fun of a particular group. I don't see people making arguments of classicism when it attacks council estate-like people such as Vicky Pollard or Andy and Lou.

[@laurencehughes4767]

As an englishman I couldn't agree more. There's a huge irony in hate speech laws. Don't worry world, the establishment can be fooled, but not the fabric of this green and pleasant land, the people. Brexit!

[@prophetsnake]

Yeh, gone are the days that you can call em fuzzy wuzzy, eh, Nigel. Fuck you, you racist piece of shit.

[@prophetsnake]

You're sooo screwed.

[@robseyharris6518]

Brexit and free speech are different things you fucking idiot

[@danielbrown9352]

@@prophetsnake BREXIT and free speech are different you moron.

[@egstar1235]

@@danielbrown9352 not really, people were terrified of saying they supported brexit because they instantly got brandished as a nazi, racist or fascist by the media and half the general public. So yeah, free speech and brexit are quite intertwined.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

Unfortunately, in history, one must often "start" at the consequences of own actions, in order to point out mistakes which happened along the way. In the big picture of things, spotting mistakes as a contemporary witness is far more difficult. True today. True at any point in history. Furthermore, in order to "avoid history repeating itself", one must *first* admit that mistakes were made. Also own mistakes. Because, according to biblical logic: only by "removing the splinters from own eyes", can we avoid "sowing seeds", which we all "reap" at some point. *So here is how European reign and domination of the world ended in 1945, and a few subsequent years (short version, longer version below):* At the end of WW2, the USA (American Century) refused to honor an important treaty Western Allied leaders had made in Quebec. A treaty/agreement almost nobody had ever heard about. With that, Washington DC intended to become the sole nuclear power, and not share (as promised per treaty) nukes with London/GB/Empire. By doing so, the new alpha stated that it did not want an equal power at eye level. They wanted a "junior partner". And with that, they became the new alpha. Rule Britania, repealed and replaced by the American Century. Pax Britannica, replaced by Pax Americana. Rule the Waves? Let's put it this way. No more "Two Power Standard". Who had "the bigger one"? :-) Washington DC (The American century) was in a position to "tear up a scrap of paper" and not care what anybody in "old Europe" thought about it. Washington Internationalism/The American Century, the other "new power" rising across the Atlantic, whose position was basically *"observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership.”* It's interesting to google that quote. Of course it refers to a timeless political strategy, which is true at all times, and explains a lot about the headlines we see in the papers today. Anyway... *Re. the concept of "being able to spot an anomaly" as history unfolded forward. Of course, it does not "happen backwards", but there is a timeline.* Machiavelli's "balance of power". Of course Machiavelli didn't invent the concept of "balance of power", but was one of the first to put it down in words in western literature. *Would a true Machiavelli have ignored the noticeable change/shift in the "balance" of the powers at around the turn of the Century? (1900)* Note that the reality of the time was that while GB/Empire and the rising USA were roughly equal in "power" at the time (around 1900), only one of these 2 "powers" had the potential to hang on to her power as the world noticeably changed around the contemporary witnesses at the time, and at least for wise leaders, also in the foreseeable future (Washington DC as the firmly established soft power "master/hegemon" in the Americas, vs. London the "still master" of an outdated 1,000+ year old colonial model). Would a true Machiavelli have snuggled up to a power without being able to "leverage/hedge" any deal (treaty/accord/agreement/etc.) it made? Would a true Machiavelli have relied on "appeals to emotion" (like "everybody speaking English") to ensure a dominant position? Last time I checked, "snuggling up" without also being in a position to "leverage" and/or "hedge" a deal, wasn't in the book (The Prince). Re. the concept of "how history unfolded aroun the turn of the century, around 1900": reality (aka "the truth") created an anomaly in the algorithm on the timeline of history. Stalin spotted it, and he intended to imitate it. I'm sure he identified the "weak links" of Western European domination set up by Versailles by the "Big Three", and other post-WW1 treaties, without Moscow being consulted. The early *Communism in One Country* advocates in Moscow, soon to become World Communism: "Observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership." I'm sure he read a lot...

[@brasso4984]

Let be honest, British gave the free world freedom but the Americans love to belief they did. Freedom has been part of the British empire since the 17th century. It gave law and order but still always gave countries to become richer with infrastructures, education etc which became the modern civilization.

[@user__100]

Britain killed 4 million Indians in Bengal in 1943 by imposing a famine

[@triple75]

genocide basically... like ireland. fuck the british empire.

[@whynofox1622]

This has to be the biggest lie of the British empire. The British didn't 'impose' it, it was started by the Japanese when they invaded Burma and if you didn't know Bengal is rght next to Burma and it's also where they get their food from. The Brits realise this and try to ask USA for food to help them but they refused and what followed was a horrible famine. But this was Japanese fault not the British

[@whynofox1622]

@@user__100 and that has to do with the Bengal famine how?

[@starryfolks]

@@whynofox1622 ww2 was fought by indians really.

[@whynofox1622]

@@starryfolks yes they took part in the war. So did like half the worlds nations at the time not sure what your point is.

[@manuelenguidanos8376]

Nobody will ever follow free speech laws or be PC in the UK its just not going to happen on any level . It's like telling Italians to stop eating pizza. Good luck with that.

[@safeysmith6720]

It’s true

[@lkececi7513]

It's happening

[@srusing3433]

What I don't like about some britishers is that some britishers don't know about wrong things the colonial genocide slavery done by their british empire or may be they know but ignore it. They are like oh sorry but that was in past it was history why bring the negativity but they are the exact same people who would say like we are proud of british empire our history was so precious so glorious. I mean there is a limit of hypocrsy the britishers want to be proud and glorify the british empire but don't want to acknowledge and accept the wrongs done by their empire to others. They want to potray churchill as a war hero but don't want to accept the crimes done by him.They are like we all would have been talking german if churchill was not around. Really! yes churchill acts as leader in world war but what about the 2.5 million indian soldiers over 100k gurkha soldiers and many more others who fought for you and of those who lost their life fighting for your war. Over 1.8 million indians only died fighting your war. You want to say hitler a devil (of course he was a devil) because of the death of 6 million jews in holocaust caused by hitler but don't want to accept that churchill was not saint either and you don't want to accept his crimes like death of 3 million people in bengal famine caused because of him. You people and your country , government became rich by colonialism by exploiting other countries their peoples extracting and taking their resourses their wealth looting them shipping their wealth to your home country. And yet you want to lecture the countries and its peoples that you exploited for centuries of ages how to behave how to live their own life. Your empire who has history of human rights violations bloodsheds in every fucking period of time through out the history and yet you want and have the audicity to teach other people morals. Your empire destroyed other countries economy their culture their society lives of peoples throught out the history. When people were dying because of hunger because they coudnot produce foods for them in their own land because your empire forced them to grow drugs opium so thay your empire can trade it for tea TEA in china and when the chinese people opposed, your empire started a war against them because the chinese didn't accept your opium in return of tea. For your empire tea was more important than peoples lives and you britishers say oh the empire was not that evil. And these are only the drops from ocean of crimes done by you britisher's so called The Great Britian Empire. There are two types of bad people one who accepts wrong done by them and accepts the truth and the other one who simply hides the truth and act like nothing happened. And you britishers belong to the second category.

[@mrwaverider5537]

I don't know what the fuck you are on about in England no one glorifies the empire... No one talks about it, and someone who does talk on it usually has people talking shit about it .. sure the British empire did shit stuff, but also so did every country in the world at that time..........

[@ninjaa6952]

You'll never meet a middle Eastern person admitting the bad of their empires so why the fuck should the west do it, I see questions like this all the time and it's just dumb don't just make it about Britain put the the question to all nations who had an empire.

[@NileScript-uf3rq]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/opi5f3SYbrN_nMU more to the story

[@qasimmir7117]

There’s no such thing as ‘Britishers.’

[@davehoward22]

Question is,If britain was so bad,murderous and genocidal then why would those gurkhas ,indians africans and irish volunteer to fight for the country in the 1st place?

[@kincaidwolf5184]

Rule Britannia

[@VCYT]

If scotland says that shit, it dont mean england does !

[@lkececi7513]

Pc will never catch on down the pub

[@jayjohnson8318]

In England you can be arrested for flying the flag in your own window. Yep.

[@monkeymox2544]

That's bollocks.Flying the Union Jack or any of the home country's flags is not illegal, and you cannot be arrested for it. The Queen flies a flag on Buck house, and as far as I know, she's not in prison. Name the law, or stop spreading nonsense.

[@prophetsnake]

That's a lie.

[@VCYT]

WRONG - as i seen it a few times with no hassel.

[@sdprz7893]

Complete bullshit, the amount of Americans who just chat shit about us to make themselves feel better

[@voidcatto1805]

Lies

[@theblackknight8055]

I wish the British empire was still a thing because we had more balls back then. And people weren't snowflakes or scared to express their opinion.

[@MBobo18]

You wish colonial oppression was happening on an international scale in 2022? Do you empathise with Russia's imperial aggression on Ukraine?

[@sasmalprasanjit2764]

Lol, What? How about Role reversal? ... We Indians Colonize you ppl in UK, segregates White, Black Britons, Force Hindi, Force To pay TAX 10x , Loot money, Trade you as a Slave then CALL You POOR BRITS! HOW about that?

[@SweetBrazyN]

God save the Queen 🇬🇧♥️

[@paulflynn6169]

God is with Ireland. God love your Queen but get the fuck out of Ireland.

[@tomconnolly9895]

She dead

[@MBobo18]

He didn't save her

[@SweetBrazyN]

@@MBobo18 God Save the Queen means God save the United Kingdom and overseas territories, so as they all still exist I’d say God hasn’t done anything against. Now take your childish comment somewhere else freak.

[@Beetless]

@@paulflynn6169 how you know?

[@emmashalliker6862]

None of this applied to the people who lived under the boot of the British Empire. Think you had free speech in British ruled India? Please.

[@da90sReAlvloc]

You country committed horrible attrocities as well

[@mogznwaz]

No one had free speech until Britain exported the concept and gave us the modern world

[@5hif7yx86]

@@mogznwaz read more.

[@lkececi7513]

Im sicj of hearing about emire and slavery - guilt trip, what dobyou think my ancestors were doing they worked 14 hrs aday in a sweat shop, lived in a hovel, whipped down the mill, they did not have the vote and were too exhausted to come back to the hovel and read the papers about slavery - when people did - ' william wilberforce, ordinary folks got behind abolition. Without expansionism - we would have been ruled by spain or france , they never had a choice, what about these Indentured slaves. people know the history - throughout time nations have subjugated others, its childish to think any nation is better / worse

[@jackb4758]

Hoo hay up our Brexit way

[@Hjd10]

1984…

[@redjive4182]

Oh please!

[@christopherjones67]

If you live in peace and in a democracy then thank the British Empire.

[@ajaycyriljose9419]

The sun never sets on the british empire because even god couldn't trust the them in the Dark .

[@5hif7yx86]

you need to read more about how the British violently forced its Empire upon its colonies.

[@christopherjones67]

@@5hif7yx86 The British Empire was benevolent and paternal. And admittedly at times violent and used gun boat diplomacy. The specific point in relation to the Empire is only we stood against the Third Reich once all else had fallen.

[@aaaaa4697]

As an Irishman, I've experienced the English being misinformed due to anger, anger which is guided towards blame, this is a false narrative that you're telling on your neighbours to the 'police'. Brits need to demand they learn about the atrocities of colonialism, i had to relearn my native language(Irish/Gaeilge) in school and it wasn't easy, it was even worse for my father. If the Brits don't acknowledge their past like Germany did they will never be free, they will always hold themselves above everyone else as having accomplished something, if you think Brexit is and will be a success you're misguided and it has had the opposite knock on effect on which it was fueled, as anti-foreigner, well now the UK is a second world country and needs all the immigrants it can get. The bar is now even lower to enter the UK. ("Hoist with his own petard") Ádh mór/good luck. We're in the end days of the british Empire and i for one am looking forward to what can be rebuilt, all working together, while respecting eachothers cultures and customs. Please take a break from Jordan peterson and maybe check out another narrative such as "blindboy boatclub" see if he has any remarks you think ring truer, "the happier a nation the less easy it is to sell them something they don't need".

[@piperjj4486]

I’ve heard this type of rhetoric from Southern Irish fellows like you before. So far It’s been the same thing everytime; a apparent lack of understanding or care for history other than using it as a blunt object to swing at people for their own personal or national gratification. I don’t do that, the standards they held are far different than they are today and to judge/inquisition modern people for the past will cause more harm than good. I’m an American btw, some of my people left Ireland during the potato famine because the father of the family was executed for stealing a horse. The rest of em’ packed up and left, they ended up being quite poor in the US because there was no provider for the family. I have plenty of ‘reason’ to go after the Brit’s for that but I don’t because I understand the flaws and intellectual stupidity of doing that, and of course I respect and understand History is to be treated like a foreign culture. See to it if you actually care that you start treating it that way as well, if not for integrity’s sake.

[@aaaaa4697]

@@piperjj4486 Interesting stuff. Just wish England today could be spoken of like Germany. They acknowledged their past and built something great with that wisdom.

[@tomconnolly9895]

@@piperjj4486 I find it hilarious that Americans always seem to have really heroic and interesting Irish ancestors who either fought in the revolution or had to flee the country after killing an oppressive English landlord during the famine. They are never just ordinary people who had ordinary jobs like a baker or some shit. I'm sorry to say but your story about the horse sounds like the plot to the awful Tom Cruise movie 'Far and Away'. My guess is someone in your family made that shite up so that they could seem more interesting. I'm from 'Southern Ireland' (Which would earn you a punch in the face if you said that to the wrong person here), and I have never come across an Irish person whose family history could rival that of the 'amazing' ancestral stories told by Americans when they come here. For all I know you are telling the truth about your ancestor, how would I know. But I have heard near identical stories from other Americans about their heroic ancestors countless times, someone has to be lying. Just know that Irish people aren't impressed by these stories, it all just sounds like bullshit to our ears.

[@sprPee]

What you said is completed leftest pc rubbish

[@tomconnolly9895]

@@sprPee whats pc about it?

[@Thwar112]

In other words, the Irish are better. You're welcome from us all.

[@danielbrown9352]

Never had an empire and an awful education system which explains you and your 'view'.

[@Thwar112]

@@danielbrown9352 we.. Have the most educated people per.. Literally everyone gets some form of school.. What're you talking about. Everyone likes us because we stay out of shit, that's exactly it.

[@oOliamchesterOo]

@@Thwar112 * laughs in oxbridge *

[@Thwar112]

@@oOliamchesterOo *giggles in darndale

[@harperwalsh9041]

I'm a Catholic loyalist so there

[@ralphbernhard1757]

*So the London lords set off to set Europe up for failure...TWICE.* London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany] In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances. The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf... In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power. In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win. *That is how the lords "played".* Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists. After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule. Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States). Set up everybody against everybody else. *Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule.* Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else... Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule. Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule... Seperating families. Divide and rule. Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule... Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent. These are the "tools" of "divide and rule". *Never a "price tag" for own actions.* Right? WRONG Brits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..." Right? WRONG To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere... "By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet." [Google: The_Great_Rapprochement] Sooooo gweat. Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals.... Right? WRONG After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint. *What could possibly go wrong?* "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."* [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] The "ring which ruled them all". The American Century. So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "special relationship BFFs" had stolen all their most profitable markets. *No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire".* US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt. They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE. Right? WRONG... A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: *"Empires" don't have "friends".* Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"... *Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring": Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world".* And after the war ended? They became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers", when Truman declared that the Brit's *"new temporary divide-and-rule best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow)* were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946). Did Washington DC ask the London lords desperately selling everything they could get their hands on, incl. high-tech jet technology, in an effort to save the Empire if this was agreeable? *ROTFL* Of course not. Washington DC needed a junior partner, not an equal... So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC. *The history of the British Empire: Hop over here for a temporary advantage one time, then hop over there for a temporary advantage another time. Hop, hop, hop...into extinction. In 1945, there was nobody left to "hop onto".* That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting.

[@mogznwaz]

No one is going to read your self indulgent claptrap. I could barely be bothered to scroll down and tell you that. Britain stopped Nazism becoming the default power in Europe. If you think that would have been a good thing you need to give your head a wobble.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

@@mogznwaz "Great Bwitain stopped the Nazis" ....and that is where I stopped reading....ROTFLMFAO

[@CrazyWhiteVanDriver]

The empire's dead. Yeewww. Evil colliniszers

[@steveparker5800]

I think it is a very rash statement saying that the British Empire was the biggest ever. If we consider since the International Law´s point of view, that the whole Australian continent, the whole India and the whole Canada were British property since UK claimed them in the XIX century as British dependences, upon the simple fact of - nobody else more could avoid it - , then the whole Pacific Ocean was a Spanish property since Spain claimed it in the XV century as Spanish property through the Pope Alexander VI´s papal bull known as Inter Caetera´, of 1493, till the Nootka Convention of 1794, where Spain at last allowed the free navigation through the Pacific Ocean. This means more than 300 consecutive years of Spanish domination over the Ocean Pacific due to the simple fact of that nobody else in Europe, Asia or Africa knew how to arrive and how to cross the Pacific Ocean, becoming so in what was known in the international context during those 300 years, as the Spanish Lake´. By the other hand, all the British colonies at Africa were assigned to UK through the international Berlin Conference of 1884 and the Versailles Peace Conference of 1919, which acted, both of them, as a kind of `United Nations´ (due to the fact of that this current international organization did not still exist that time), in order to distribute Africa among the European powers according to the European Law and point of view. Concerning to Spain during the height of its power, it was the pope himself in the XV century, (that´s, the `United Nations´ of that time...), who assigned through the Conference and Treaty of Tordesillas, of 1494, the whole American Continent plus the whole Pacific Ocean plus a half from the Atlantic Ocean, to Spain, since Spain had discovered the Americas and the Pacific Ocean, while he also assigned the whole African Continent plus the Indian Ocean plus the other half from the Atlantic Ocean, to Portugal, since Portugal had discovered the African Continent and the Indian Ocean. Both Spain and Portugal had claimed in exclusivity too the Atlantic Ocean, so this is the reason of the pope divided it half to half between them. This way during the Iberian Union of the Spanish and the Portuguese Empires into a unique empire ruled by Spain (since 1580 till 1640), the Spanish Empire since the International Law´s point of view included the whole American Continent plus the whole African continent plus the whole Pacific Ocean plus the Whole Indian Ocean plus the whole Atlantic Ocean. That´s a peak of extension of over 360 000 000 km² including lands and oceans, and this is the reason why the Spanish coins of that period represented the spanish king riding a horse over a sphere that meant the domination of the whole world by Spain as the first universal or global empire from History, since the 70% of the planet belonged to Spain and this is the reason of the famous Phillipe II of Spain´s phrase ` the sun never sets down in my kingdom´. The maximun extension ever of the British Empire was around 40 000 000 km² and never included neither oceans nor seas. This is this way because, unlike Spain, UK could never claim a whole sea or ocean as exclusive British possession since during the peak of the British power, (since 1815 till 1914), there were many important colonialist competitors for UK around the world, such as France, Germany, Russia, USA or Japan. The Spanish Empire instead, during its peak of power (since 1494 till 1650), had no real colonialist competitors to dispute its territorial or maritim claims due to the deep difference of power between Spain and its powerful empire extended all along the world, compared with the rest of European, African or Asian countries, who had mere little territories if not nothing, out from Europe, Africa or Asia respectively, and in consecuence less human, politic, economic and militar power. In conclusion, the biggest empire from History according to its full extension during a certain period of time was the Spanish one, followed, in this order, by the Russian one, the British one, the Mongolian one and the French one. The Spanish Empire also included during the Iberian Union all the territories discovered by Spain or Portugal and claimed as possessions by them: Australia, discovered by Spain for Spain, Indonesia, discovered by Portugal for Portugal, New Zeland, discovered by Spain for Spain, Japan, discovered by Portugal for Portugal etc, plus diverse specific places discovered by Portugal at India, China and Arabia, and by Spain at Antartica and at several islands all along the Pacific Ocean. Spain and Portugal discovered together the entire world for Europe, so all those continents and territories discovered by them around the world have still Spanish or Portuguese names like `Canada´, `America´, `Africa´, `New Guinea´, `Antartica´, `Australia´, `Indonesia´, `Japan´, `Indochina´, `Arabia´, `Phillipines´, `Pacific Ocean´, `Indian Ocean´, `Solomon Islands´, `Marianas Islands´, `Fernandinas Islands´, etc. By last, according to its global impact for History, scholars and historians all over the world claim that the most prominent empire in the Humankind History, is the Spanish one just after the Greek and the Roman Empires, because of the changes that it brought to the world. One of those changes or effects was the dawn of the British Empire itself more than 100 years after the rise of the Spanish one. It´s more, there are many historians who consider that the Spanish Empire is even ahead of the Greek or Roman Empires in importance because linked all the 5 continents and all the 5 oceans for the first time in the Humankind History, unifying the world and creating the globalization which we all know today. I´m not Spanish but I´m a History teacher and History is History and the historical objective facts are the historical objective facts. Spanish Empire during the Iberian Union: scontent-mad1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/71794274_127262928676684_5089349848474320896_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_oc=AQkAy-cOIJ5waNDmLA8rsaTIJsPN5KgaSMSoc9K90rHcU1uldueUNmAqHczVPfNe36L-XJiApBZPj-cWw5FUeLZK&_nc_ht=scontent-mad1-1.xx&oh=9a6d64061294b6fbba266abdb0c1971d&oe=5E3C185E To learn more about the Spanish Empire and its massive importance take a look to this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ioSlm6Z7Ysusl9U ((Pay attention on you can download and read for free the O.H.K Spate´s History book about the `Spanish Lake´ directly from the link under the video)).

[@fot6771]

Key word *LAND* . If we include sea, then defacto the UK still comes on top? Two power standard? ever heard of the Royal navy?

[@danielbrown9352]

Yes but nobody cares about international law and oceans don't count.

[@LimaFoxtrot_98]

I have no doubts that the Spanish Empire was very influential and effectively had supreme leadership over the world during its epoch. However, there is a difference between land being "claimed" and actively ruled over. Protestant English and Dutch governments effectively ruled over former Spanish land in the Caribbean. Did they care for what the Catholic pope determined to be Spanish land? Additionally, Spain went bankrupt and was quickly eclipsed by France and the Netherlands in the 17th century. Spanish "rule" was poor at best from then on, and focused around centralized inefficient control - setting the precedent for fascist and communist governments in that part of the world today. Spain did not start the industrial revolution, Britain did, spending it to all of its colonies. Arguably this was the most significant change in human history since the advent of agriculture. Industrialization increased populations and influence on a scale many times more influential than that of the Spanish Empire which operated on the technology and output of the late middle ages. It would never be able to build significant urban centers, and its populations were alienated.

[@kartoffel4870]

This is literally the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard. We claimed, still do claim to rule the waves and therefore 70% of the world is still ours.

[@safeysmith6720]

Thanks for the book. I’ll read it next time I’m trying to go to sleep. You should read about how KZbin works.