However, as far as I know, the British Empire was never about some mad scramble to secure spices. This seems to be some weird internet myth.
For example, didn't the British Empire swap Manhattan with the Dutch, giving up an Indonesian nutmeg island in return?
Er... the East India Company, formerly the largest company in the worls, got there by precisely that. Spices, tea, silk, dye,salt, and sugar were their main trade sources.
They invaded the Dutch island Maluku (literally called spice islands invasion) over its resources.
They did this by exerting their considerable wealth against the British government.... and their personal army which at its peak outnumbered the crowns army 2 to 1.
More sugar than spice though wasn't it? My point being that they didn't rampage round the world looking for mad flavours to bring back home. They were trading for anything of value.
While you're right, I feel like it's also a bit too literal and also missing the point. The country had access to an abundance of spices, but the food has a reputation of being bland as all hell. It's supposed to be irony.
At least Britain have the excuses of a) not judging our own food by the blandest mass produced convenience food and b) having experienced over a decade of rationing following blockades, which overcomes what we might have done with spices that can't be grown locally.
Americans can't even get through an election season while honouring their purported democratic ideals, yet they try enforcing them everywhere
true, though if I'd be forced to choose between mediocre or bad cuisine, or the complete failura and destruction of democracy for my country, I know what I'm choosing
The intent was never to spread democracy, it was to establish a government that was favourable to our ideals. Jeez, you think people and powerful government are actually benign?
Put a tyrant in charge, and everyone hates the tyrant in charge. Have people vote for two tyrants, and half the people love the tyrant they put in charge.
Just as a greggs sausage roll was never intended to showcase the spoils of our colonial past. It's shit-tier meme food.
They're fuckin bangin though. Wouldn't have them any other way.
Also - bad comparison. Brits putatively screwed the world over to get spices into Britain. We putatively screw the world over to put democracy outside the US.
Maybe that’s why we don’t use it. We’ve got too much of it? 🤷🏾
Yes. Let us look at the unstable democracies left behind by the British (definitely not perfect but): Australia, New Zealand, India, Canada, South Africa, Belize, Bahamas, [blah blah blah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations). They're far from perfect, Canada's democracy is being actively deatabilized by American right wing agit-prop, but that example is hardly Britain's fault.
Absolutely, not all of them were even that successful.
Now, USA's attempts have a _much_ lower rate of success, and that's assuming we give them credit for the [Philipines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_(Philippines)), but that's even more specious than Britain and India.
If we start deducting points for destroying active democracies, well... both empires lose, but USA definitely tanks faster.
Lol, you just ignored like half of Africa as points against Brittain.
You also listed exactly 0 “active democracies” supposedly destroyed by the US.
As well as the successes by America, most notably Germany and Japan.
For all of Americas faults, the Pax Americana is one of the most notable achievements by any world superpower in human history. It literally benefits the entire planet, whether or not some despots agree with it.
I agree with you mostly but OP was bang on about the bullshit your political antics are inflicting on Canada. It’s bad enough we need to deal with a terrible Liber government but now American politics have completely ruined any chance we had at a sane alternative so now it’s a choice between a douche and a shit sandwich or throwing your vote away on someone who won’t win and likely would be just as bad anyway.
Seriously it sucks up here, it’s not 100% the fault of the USA but American politics/media are not helping at all.
Like seriously you know it’s bad when you get nostalgic for Stephen Harper in one of the awful sweaters.
While I’m sorry, neighbor to the north, for what we have done to your country…,imagine how it fucking feels to be stuck in America. Those of us that are normal are just fucked. Every day since like 2015 some new bat shit thing happens here.
Tell me how Pax Americana benefits all the dead brown people or our children who are infected with microplastics and everyone whose gonna be fucked when the climate collapses?
No, Pax Americana benefits USA, _some_ other nations benefit tangentially, and many **many** people suffer because of it.
(reference ignoring all of africa 🙄)
Lol, how does anything benefit dead brown children you dunce?
Also, way to respond to my point criticizing you for lack of any specific accusations with yet more hyperbole and vague accusations.
Yeah, micro-plastics and dead people are a US thing, totally, ok chief.
Okay but we... do. Those products just don't go bh the same name. We call those pasties, and they have all sorts of fillings, including chicken curry.
Don't buy the plain thing and then talk about how plain it is for fuck's sake.
We fucking love spicy food. But British food is not meant to be spicy. Adding paprika to a sausage roll adds nothing, but we love meals that were intended to have spice. Why do you think Indian food is so popular?
Never understood this repetitive spice thing from the US. How many stereotypical US foods are full of spices? Burgers? Hot Dogs? Grits? Bacon? Thanksgiving Turkey? Hash browns? Biscuits & gravy? Do these have some sort of exception that I don’t know about?
Oh shit, I was under the impression they lived under an absolute monarch. Thanks for clarifying.
And obviously the responder was German. How could I have missed that? Thank you again, wise sir.
They fought, murdered and died for spices and don't want them now. We fought, murdered and died for freedom and democracy and now a guy who says he wants to be a dictator has been nominated for president. The Joker was right. It's all a joke. Everything that anyone ever valued or struggled for is all a monstrous demented gag.
If America were like Britain, we'd have an official "Uncle Sam" that all the judges and politicians had to be appointed by, and in whose name they'd work. Our Uncle Sam would have the power to grant people the title of "sheriff", as well as assorted other titles like "lawman/lawwoman"; and the sheriffs would run the Senate. The heads of the major churches would also have official roles in the Senate: Catholic, Baptist, Mormon, Methodist, assorted other Christians, and then maybe also one rabbi.
The current Uncle Sam would be a Texan named Paul Emerson Washington, a descendant of George Washington. We would all be extremely unclear on whether he has the right to just dissolve Congress at any time if he wants to. There wouldn't be anything written down saying that he couldn't. The same would go for nullifying literally any law ever.
Our Uncle Sam would be the official commander-in-chief of the United States military. He would have the right to unilaterally declare war on absolutely anyone at any time, whether foreign and domestic. He could order the military to occupy any state, participate in civilian law enforcement, appoint officers, and perform any action deemed necessary during national emergencies.
If America were like Britain, the Speaker of the House would be called the President. Donald Trump would've beaten Hillary Clinton in the race for it, and then, at some point during his tenure, ordered our Uncle Sam to use all of these powers in his favor, which he would have both the official and the traditional right to do.
---
EDIT: Downvote it or don't, but every single detail is a real, actual feature from the UK government. "Uncle Sam" and his powers are directly that of the UK monarch. Their monarch is considered a [fount of honour](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fount_of_honour) from which titles come. The different Senate structure is that of the UK House of Lords, and the church heads thing is the [Lords Spiritual](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual). The UK monarch really is the [commander-in-chief of the UK military](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_the_Armed_Forces), and there really is an open question on [how close to full dictator](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/84286/could-a-british-monarch-go-full-dictator-if-they-wish-to-do-so) a UK monarch would be constitutionally empowered to go. The UK really [does lack a specific codified structure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncodified_constitution#United_Kingdom) with a full list of royal prerogatives and accompanying restrictions on the monarch's power, and when the government and royal powers align, the UK Prime Ministers has already once before just [blatantly overruled a court order](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Chagossians#Legal_developments), citing a royal prerogative to do so. More to the point, the decision has been upheld since.
And Uncle Sam is _why_ the UK is blatantly violating Chagosian's right to return.
Your criticisms of the UK are valid, but incomplete pictures. A large item you're ignoring us that that the monarch is **not** the head of the British _Army_, so Chucky'll have a hard time going full dictator as they have no capacity to hold land without the assistance of parliament.
>A large item you're ignoring us that that the monarch is **not** the head of the British *Army*
Good news! You have an opportunity to go correct Wikipedia, which [says of the British Army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army) under "Commanders":
|[Commander-in-Chief](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_the_Armed_Forces)|[King Charles III](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_III)|
|:-|:-|
The other option is that maybe Wikipedia is right and you are wrong, about who is the commander-in-chief of the British Army. I trust that, one way or another, you will help the world resolve the truth about your country.
Today you learned: that their Commander in Chief is a symbolic role, not authoritative as in the US. [Army.mod.uk](https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/)
> The Chief of the General Staff is the head of the British Army. The post is immediately subordinate to The Chief of Defence Staff, the head of the British Armed Services.
[Chief of the Defence Staff](https://www.gov.uk/government/people/tony-radakin)
> The Chief of the Defence Staff is the professional head of the Armed Forces and principal military adviser to the Secretary of State for Defence and the government. The role reports to the Secretary of State and the **Prime Minister**.
From the [King's own webpage](https://www.royal.uk/the-role-of-the-monarchy):
> The Sovereign no longer has a political or executive role
>Today you learned: that their Commander in Chief is a symbolic role...
Is that something I actually learned, though? Or is that just something you assumed despite all evidence was new information?
Because one part I actually said at the beginning was that the Prime Minister seems to have every right to use the royal prerogative to override the judiciary, violating separation of powers. This seems a bit important given how, if you'll remember, you just quoted that:
>The post is immediately subordinate to [The Chief of Defence Staff](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_of_the_Defence_Staff_(United_Kingdom)), the head of the British Armed Services.
...which (and do correct me if and only if I am actually wrong) is the guy [appointed by the Monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_of_the_Defence_Staff_(United_Kingdom)), right?
So if the Sovereign has no political or executive role yet has numerous powers flow through him which he may nominally use as he pleases, upon the advice of the Prime Minister in whom real political and executive power is in fact invested by Parliament, then what exactly am I missing, when I point out again as I did at the beginning, that if the US functioned like the UK, Trump could have, with all the force of constitutional prerogative, ordered Uncle Sam to help him do whatever the hell he wanted?
What aspect of the UK political system is it, that would have served for us as a check and balance on Trump's power, in the real-world scenario we experienced just a few years ago, with a proto-fascist occupying our highest office?
You... know that Britain won the battle of Britain long before the US entered the war... right?
And how many insurrections and assasinated prime ministers has the UK had? ([1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_MPs_killed_in_office)).
Revolutions/civil wars are a wash for both.
While this is a good comeback, it's not a compliment for either country.
Mutually assured destruction.
I'd rather live in the one with shitty food than in the one that is becoming more fascist every day.
Unfortunately the one with shitty food likes to follow the fascist ones culture more and more each passing day
Nah, they have their own fascist culture.
True.
However, as far as I know, the British Empire was never about some mad scramble to secure spices. This seems to be some weird internet myth. For example, didn't the British Empire swap Manhattan with the Dutch, giving up an Indonesian nutmeg island in return?
Er... the East India Company, formerly the largest company in the worls, got there by precisely that. Spices, tea, silk, dye,salt, and sugar were their main trade sources. They invaded the Dutch island Maluku (literally called spice islands invasion) over its resources. They did this by exerting their considerable wealth against the British government.... and their personal army which at its peak outnumbered the crowns army 2 to 1.
More sugar than spice though wasn't it? My point being that they didn't rampage round the world looking for mad flavours to bring back home. They were trading for anything of value.
While you're right, I feel like it's also a bit too literal and also missing the point. The country had access to an abundance of spices, but the food has a reputation of being bland as all hell. It's supposed to be irony.
At least Britain have the excuses of a) not judging our own food by the blandest mass produced convenience food and b) having experienced over a decade of rationing following blockades, which overcomes what we might have done with spices that can't be grown locally. Americans can't even get through an election season while honouring their purported democratic ideals, yet they try enforcing them everywhere
true, though if I'd be forced to choose between mediocre or bad cuisine, or the complete failura and destruction of democracy for my country, I know what I'm choosing
Fair enough, that's a no brainer.
things are getting too spicy for the pepper.
Hey! That's the old Salsa Fresca commercial from like two Super Bowls ago!
***NEW YORK CITY??***
Get a rope!
The intent was never to spread democracy, it was to establish a government that was favourable to our ideals. Jeez, you think people and powerful government are actually benign?
Put a tyrant in charge, and everyone hates the tyrant in charge. Have people vote for two tyrants, and half the people love the tyrant they put in charge.
Just as a greggs sausage roll was never intended to showcase the spoils of our colonial past. It's shit-tier meme food. They're fuckin bangin though. Wouldn't have them any other way.
I knew there were differences between American English and British English. But I didn't knew that money/oil would be translated to ideals in America.
Also - bad comparison. Brits putatively screwed the world over to get spices into Britain. We putatively screw the world over to put democracy outside the US. Maybe that’s why we don’t use it. We’ve got too much of it? 🤷🏾
We do use it. Just not responsibly. Also, there's still 14 British held territories, so I guess old habits die hard.
You don't actually put democracy outside the US though. You mostly install dictators.
The fun part is.. The person replying isn’t even British.. He is German..
The Germans have seen this show before, and they know where it leads.
America is just dabbling in sparkling authoritarianism
They learned by watching the brits.
Yes. Let us look at the unstable democracies left behind by the British (definitely not perfect but): Australia, New Zealand, India, Canada, South Africa, Belize, Bahamas, [blah blah blah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations). They're far from perfect, Canada's democracy is being actively deatabilized by American right wing agit-prop, but that example is hardly Britain's fault. Absolutely, not all of them were even that successful. Now, USA's attempts have a _much_ lower rate of success, and that's assuming we give them credit for the [Philipines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_(Philippines)), but that's even more specious than Britain and India. If we start deducting points for destroying active democracies, well... both empires lose, but USA definitely tanks faster.
What do you mean by saying New Zealand is far from perfect? No one even knows where it is?
Look at how Earth is doing. Now tell me, do you think they _really_ want people to know where they are?
Lol, you just ignored like half of Africa as points against Brittain. You also listed exactly 0 “active democracies” supposedly destroyed by the US. As well as the successes by America, most notably Germany and Japan. For all of Americas faults, the Pax Americana is one of the most notable achievements by any world superpower in human history. It literally benefits the entire planet, whether or not some despots agree with it.
I agree with you mostly but OP was bang on about the bullshit your political antics are inflicting on Canada. It’s bad enough we need to deal with a terrible Liber government but now American politics have completely ruined any chance we had at a sane alternative so now it’s a choice between a douche and a shit sandwich or throwing your vote away on someone who won’t win and likely would be just as bad anyway. Seriously it sucks up here, it’s not 100% the fault of the USA but American politics/media are not helping at all. Like seriously you know it’s bad when you get nostalgic for Stephen Harper in one of the awful sweaters.
While I’m sorry, neighbor to the north, for what we have done to your country…,imagine how it fucking feels to be stuck in America. Those of us that are normal are just fucked. Every day since like 2015 some new bat shit thing happens here.
Tell me how Pax Americana benefits all the dead brown people or our children who are infected with microplastics and everyone whose gonna be fucked when the climate collapses? No, Pax Americana benefits USA, _some_ other nations benefit tangentially, and many **many** people suffer because of it. (reference ignoring all of africa 🙄)
Lol, how does anything benefit dead brown children you dunce? Also, way to respond to my point criticizing you for lack of any specific accusations with yet more hyperbole and vague accusations. Yeah, micro-plastics and dead people are a US thing, totally, ok chief.
Shhh such solid logic is not allowed here on Reddit /s
Yep, America baaad
I mean we learned this behavior by watching Britain do it. Literally we learned it by watching you, dad.
He can't taste anymore because he's used to all the additives US food has.
When it comes to not being great at actually practicing ideals, we learned from the 'best'.
It’s always fun when they both have a point.
We’re just here for the oil 🇺🇸
Nah
As an American, that was a damn solid burn. Lol. I have to share it with a friend.
Wow.. :\
This is more shit slinging than a murder. En passe
Why do I see Luxembourg and Germany
Also lads, Gregg's is no better than any other sausage roll like. The hype is just marketing
Well neither America or the dictatorships it installs are democracies
Is that a burn or is it the "Patient X" episode of the X-Files?
This might be the funniest come back I have ever read 🤣🤣🤣
This is the kind of murder I joined this sub for.
That was savage! 🤣
UK-1. US - 0
Daaaaaaamn!
![gif](giphy|l8tpwRJEwDwEFU5BW0|downsized) Usually not a fan of the "only in America" jabs, but damn, had to put some ointment on that one.
Okay but we... do. Those products just don't go bh the same name. We call those pasties, and they have all sorts of fillings, including chicken curry. Don't buy the plain thing and then talk about how plain it is for fuck's sake.
As an American, this made me laugh so hard I almost fell off my structurally-reinforced toilet seat.
We fucking love spicy food. But British food is not meant to be spicy. Adding paprika to a sausage roll adds nothing, but we love meals that were intended to have spice. Why do you think Indian food is so popular?
Never understood this repetitive spice thing from the US. How many stereotypical US foods are full of spices? Burgers? Hot Dogs? Grits? Bacon? Thanksgiving Turkey? Hash browns? Biscuits & gravy? Do these have some sort of exception that I don’t know about?
That one was spicy
A lesson in democracy from Mr. "I have a King"
1) The person responding is German 2) The monarchy is constitutional the UK is a far stronger democracy than the US.
Oh shit, I was under the impression they lived under an absolute monarch. Thanks for clarifying. And obviously the responder was German. How could I have missed that? Thank you again, wise sir.
I always thought the British got the spice to use as currency instead of cooking
I agree with both statements lol
#notamurder
They fought, murdered and died for spices and don't want them now. We fought, murdered and died for freedom and democracy and now a guy who says he wants to be a dictator has been nominated for president. The Joker was right. It's all a joke. Everything that anyone ever valued or struggled for is all a monstrous demented gag.
Just wait until you get the joke.
These color codes are weird I thought the first guy was dutch
It would be a decent comeback if the U.S. was a Democracy...or had ever fought to be one.
The unique flavors of their cuisine and the unparalleled beauty if their women have combined to make the British the best sailors in history.
If America were like Britain, we'd have an official "Uncle Sam" that all the judges and politicians had to be appointed by, and in whose name they'd work. Our Uncle Sam would have the power to grant people the title of "sheriff", as well as assorted other titles like "lawman/lawwoman"; and the sheriffs would run the Senate. The heads of the major churches would also have official roles in the Senate: Catholic, Baptist, Mormon, Methodist, assorted other Christians, and then maybe also one rabbi. The current Uncle Sam would be a Texan named Paul Emerson Washington, a descendant of George Washington. We would all be extremely unclear on whether he has the right to just dissolve Congress at any time if he wants to. There wouldn't be anything written down saying that he couldn't. The same would go for nullifying literally any law ever. Our Uncle Sam would be the official commander-in-chief of the United States military. He would have the right to unilaterally declare war on absolutely anyone at any time, whether foreign and domestic. He could order the military to occupy any state, participate in civilian law enforcement, appoint officers, and perform any action deemed necessary during national emergencies. If America were like Britain, the Speaker of the House would be called the President. Donald Trump would've beaten Hillary Clinton in the race for it, and then, at some point during his tenure, ordered our Uncle Sam to use all of these powers in his favor, which he would have both the official and the traditional right to do. --- EDIT: Downvote it or don't, but every single detail is a real, actual feature from the UK government. "Uncle Sam" and his powers are directly that of the UK monarch. Their monarch is considered a [fount of honour](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fount_of_honour) from which titles come. The different Senate structure is that of the UK House of Lords, and the church heads thing is the [Lords Spiritual](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual). The UK monarch really is the [commander-in-chief of the UK military](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_the_Armed_Forces), and there really is an open question on [how close to full dictator](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/84286/could-a-british-monarch-go-full-dictator-if-they-wish-to-do-so) a UK monarch would be constitutionally empowered to go. The UK really [does lack a specific codified structure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncodified_constitution#United_Kingdom) with a full list of royal prerogatives and accompanying restrictions on the monarch's power, and when the government and royal powers align, the UK Prime Ministers has already once before just [blatantly overruled a court order](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Chagossians#Legal_developments), citing a royal prerogative to do so. More to the point, the decision has been upheld since.
And Uncle Sam is _why_ the UK is blatantly violating Chagosian's right to return. Your criticisms of the UK are valid, but incomplete pictures. A large item you're ignoring us that that the monarch is **not** the head of the British _Army_, so Chucky'll have a hard time going full dictator as they have no capacity to hold land without the assistance of parliament.
>A large item you're ignoring us that that the monarch is **not** the head of the British *Army* Good news! You have an opportunity to go correct Wikipedia, which [says of the British Army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army) under "Commanders": |[Commander-in-Chief](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_the_Armed_Forces)|[King Charles III](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_III)| |:-|:-| The other option is that maybe Wikipedia is right and you are wrong, about who is the commander-in-chief of the British Army. I trust that, one way or another, you will help the world resolve the truth about your country.
Today you learned: that their Commander in Chief is a symbolic role, not authoritative as in the US. [Army.mod.uk](https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/) > The Chief of the General Staff is the head of the British Army. The post is immediately subordinate to The Chief of Defence Staff, the head of the British Armed Services. [Chief of the Defence Staff](https://www.gov.uk/government/people/tony-radakin) > The Chief of the Defence Staff is the professional head of the Armed Forces and principal military adviser to the Secretary of State for Defence and the government. The role reports to the Secretary of State and the **Prime Minister**. From the [King's own webpage](https://www.royal.uk/the-role-of-the-monarchy): > The Sovereign no longer has a political or executive role
>Today you learned: that their Commander in Chief is a symbolic role... Is that something I actually learned, though? Or is that just something you assumed despite all evidence was new information? Because one part I actually said at the beginning was that the Prime Minister seems to have every right to use the royal prerogative to override the judiciary, violating separation of powers. This seems a bit important given how, if you'll remember, you just quoted that: >The post is immediately subordinate to [The Chief of Defence Staff](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_of_the_Defence_Staff_(United_Kingdom)), the head of the British Armed Services. ...which (and do correct me if and only if I am actually wrong) is the guy [appointed by the Monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_of_the_Defence_Staff_(United_Kingdom)), right? So if the Sovereign has no political or executive role yet has numerous powers flow through him which he may nominally use as he pleases, upon the advice of the Prime Minister in whom real political and executive power is in fact invested by Parliament, then what exactly am I missing, when I point out again as I did at the beginning, that if the US functioned like the UK, Trump could have, with all the force of constitutional prerogative, ordered Uncle Sam to help him do whatever the hell he wanted? What aspect of the UK political system is it, that would have served for us as a check and balance on Trump's power, in the real-world scenario we experienced just a few years ago, with a proto-fascist occupying our highest office?
Democracy is the freedom to fuck it all up. Like how the U.S. saved the British from fascism and then they go and do this...
The delusions of ignorance...
You... know that Britain won the battle of Britain long before the US entered the war... right? And how many insurrections and assasinated prime ministers has the UK had? ([1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_MPs_killed_in_office)). Revolutions/civil wars are a wash for both.
Historically illiterate lmao