The British Empire

South Africa. Oh yeah, and also Gandhi. You know, that dude who became one of the most influential people on earth because he disagreed with the British Empire? Yeah, him.

 

Native America also. The British were a major force in wiping them out (along with other Europeans, of course).

 

Oh yes, of course. How could I forget about those some thousands/millions of deaths in the name of the British Empire? :lolface:

 

So, for one, you want the world to be united under the flag of Britain?

Secondly, are you saying Britain ended the slave trade in the United States?

 

All I was pointing out was that some of the countries that gained independence from Britain (most of them given it, were they not?) have gone considerably downhill from there.

The abolitionist movement started in Europe, so yes it did end slave trade in the United States.

 

Name a country that gained their independence from Great Britain without a price.

The Civil War ended slavery in the U.S.

 

But the Civil War was star... nevermind.

 

The end of the slave TRADE in the U.S. was in 1808, and that could possibly have been influenced by Britain's decision to end it. Slavery as an institution in the U.S. was ended by the Civil War.

Anyway, I abhor the idea of being ruled by any power, especially a foreign one. So I would oppose a new British Empire.

 

This makes you anarchist. *internet high five*

 

I think Australia didn't have to fight, but Britain never cared about their penal colony anyways.

 

I am assuming he was implying any foreign power. He didn't exactly state he was against the government of his nation itself.

It's moreover anti-Imperialism, perhaps.

 

He also followed it up with "especially a foreign one", which strongly implies that he is including his own government. Not to say that this statement makes him abolitionist anarchist, but that seems to be where this is going.

 

The British Empire is STILL a force to be reckoned with, but the U.S. is the big dog in the yard. I still find it ironic that one of the youngest nations in the world can rise to the top like that.

 

The British Empire is technically nonexistent; I don't think that the UK has any real control over Commonwealth nations, does it?

 

Not necessarily a political one, although the UK still makes attempts to keep ties with the Commonwealth, i.e. the lesser known Commonwealth Games.

And I believe Arch was referring to the UK as its present state as a nation and parliamentary monarchy in and of itself.

 

I would like to reiterate here that while Britain is a massive political power, it has no resources itself so it in itself as a parliamentary monarchy still has little power.

 

You mean renewable and non-renewable material resources? Britain does, although their supplies seem to be dwindling.

Though correct me if I'm mistaking "resources" for something else.

 

You are not mistaking me.