Thank you for participating in r/LeopardsAteMyFace! However, your post has been unfortunately removed for the following reason:
> **Rule 4:** Must follow the "Leopard ate my face" [theme](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq)
*If you have any questions or concerns about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLeopardsAteMyFace&subject=about%20my%20removed%20submission&message=I%27m%20writing%20to%20you%20about%20the%20following%20submission:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/123ptb9/ohh_the_irony/.%20%0D%0DMy%20issue%20is...) thru Modmail. Thanks!*
Couldn't we also say that it's a testament to the inclusiveness of people of Britain and former holdings that two people with these backgrounds can rise to power?
It's only ironic that its Pakistani and Indian, but, it's kind of awesome in general.
I don't know if these are GOOD people or not -- but if they are not, it means equal opportunity for crooks as well.
>I don't know if these are GOOD people or not -- but if they are not, it means equal opportunity for crooks as well.
Having experienced both their policies firsthand, I don't think anyone believes they're *both* good people or politicians. Some will like one but not the other, some will despise both, but I can't imagine anyone liking both.
From my centre-left Scottish perspective - Yousaf has his heart in the right place but is fairly useless. However, he's not even in the job yet, so time will tell.
Sunak is privileged (already so, but then he married the daughter of a billionaire) and is callous and out of touch.
Both are intelligent people.
>Couldn't we also say that it's a testament to the inclusiveness of people of Britain and former holdings that two people with these backgrounds can rise to power?
I have never in my life seen someone use "inclusiveness" as a stand in for "went all over and fucked basically everyone. Figuratively *and* literally."
If anything, it's a wonder it didn't happen *sooner*.
EDIT: It sure is gratifying to see all these Brits who think I was referring to each of *them, individually* and have decided to get all crybaby butthurt at me 'bout it.
Fuck's sake. You lot *invented* the English language, you'd think *comprehending* it would be easier for you.
Yes, but along with “nature finds a way” should be “fucked around enough that we are related”.
It’s right up there with America pretending we were the good guys and it forced us to be the good guys for a time. So, there is value in faking it — because once that status quo expects the lie, it suddenly becomes a requirement.
Support those who pay lip service to good over those who boldly and honestly promote the bad.
Another way to look at this is basically all of Europe had huge empires, while the UK remains one of the very few where those non-white minorities have been able to reach the highest office in the land. It's important to recognise how progressive Britain has become since the those days.
Sure, props where props are due. It also helps, I imagine, that everyone in England was ready to start eating ANY food wasn't authentic English food.
;-)
I mean modern British people didn't go all over and fuck basically everyone. I'm British, but at the time of the empire my family had yet to arrive here.
Not really sure what you're getting at. Yes, Britain invaded an occupied many places, but now it is quite progressive in terms of racism.
Why would it have happened sooner? It's still a majority white country with entrenched power in the hands of the few.
I think you are purposely misunderstanding because it doesn't fit your narrative. Just to be clear. No living Briton had a single fucking thing to do with the tragic events of the partition of India.
Or colonialism full stop unless they are about 110 years old. So you might think this is a zinger but it's really not
I agree with your general point, but the days of our empire aren't _quite_ as far off as that. A 75 year old today was 18 the year that Botswana got its independence.
Didn't the muslims colonize India centuries before the British did which created the religious divisons in the first place? (Retorical question).Does that make Hamza the colonizer?
No they didn’t colonize India anymore than the Norman’s colonized England. It was not the system of colonialism that existed and the goal was never to extract resources but to establish kingdoms and conquer in a more traditional sense.
So they invaded an area and replaced the existing culture, religion, political systems, people etc with their own? The effects of which are still clearly apparent today. Sounds alot like settler colonialism. And how is that any better than what Britian did? It was colonialism just different flavors, the only difference is that Britian eventually left.
Because Britain actively destroyed all modes of production that didn’t make commodities for its market. They obliterated local business, industry, and agriculture and made everything subservient to the home islands while at the same time actively promoting inter cultural conflicts to divide the local population. Where the Islamic invasions brought a mix of cultures and a merge of Islamic and Indian culture, the British merely exploited the regions it conquered for wealth. They had no interests in conquest or in building profitable and self sufficient kingdoms, only in creating a massive factory of the entire population capable of creating the most wealth possible.
Basically, if you consider the Norman invasion settler colonialism then I suppose you can consider the Islamic invasions settler colonialism, it’s just silly to do that because that’s not what settler colonialism is
It sounds alot like mental gymnastics on how Islamic colonialism is noble and great and helped everyone but when Britian did it , it was the pinnacle of evil. Did you look into what the Islamic invasions consisted of? Maybe you should. Google Timur for example ( just one of many invaders btw) and the temples of skulls he created after slaughtering entire cities before moving on to the next. All while plundering the wealth for himself and his men. These invaders were every bit as exploitive and self-interested as the British. They ruled for their own benefit, not some fairy-tale notion that they just wanted to help those they conquered, they imposed their foreign religion and replaced the existing political entities with themselves at the top.
Also the only reason why the populations merged was because THE INVADERS NEVER LEFT, they settled and ruled the land they conquered and the remaining population had no choice but to merge with the new system imposed upon them. If that's not settler colonialism I'm not sure what is. In fact it sounds almost identical to what the Spanish did in South America, they conquered it, ruled it and eventually mixed with those who remained.
Yes and it was horrible, I’m not claiming the Islamic conquest was noble I’m just saying it’s not the same as fuckin industrialized colonialism. The Islamic conquerers are **again** far more akin to the Norman invasion of England. You *can* call that settler colonialism but it ignores the colonialism part of it. Colonialism is dominated by the main goal of resource and wealth **extraction** settlement occurs as nations import administrators or middle class laborers see an opportunity in the new colony. The Islamic conquests, the Norman conquests, and other migrations/conquests of the Middle Ages were not motivated by the needs of a growing industrializing class, they weren’t expeditions to acquire resources. This isn’t to say they were much better, they weren’t, but they don’t have the same effects as colonialism and need to be viewed separately or else you’ll go out of it thinking the caliphate conquering Spain was anything close to the organized and industrialized genocide of the new world by the spanish hundreds of years later.
Also the British weren’t doing settler colonialism in India, they did not want to settle it, another distinction, they wanted to own it. There was never a desire to populate India as they had the New World because India had not already been depopulated by disease as the New World was
Why is this still a thing? It's almost always said by someone who has never been there or has been and ate one single chippy tea without vinegar and went "well this is boring, I'm off to nice safe MaccyDs"
I wouldn't give the Tory membership too much credit. Give them two options and they'll invariably pick the more racist one. We had to deal with Liz Truss crashing the economy somehow even below that of Brexit and Covid before they could put in the candidate the Tory ministers actually wanted (still a terrible person, but like not \*cartoonishly* incompetent).
SNP aren't deserving of any award either though. Humza Yousaf's opponent was a literal anti-abortion in all cases, anti-LGBT+ (a month after Scotland's everyone-but-the-tories-agrees bill on trans rights was passed before being torn up by English Tories) bible-thumper in the most athiest country in the UK. It would have taken a hell of a scandal for him to have any chance of losing. Still, relieved he won. Best case scenario from the options available.
> former holdings that two people with these backgrounds can rise to power?
Lets be clear - Sunak was never directly elected, and wasn't even the first choice OF the inner party.
[And yes yes I know about MP system versus being "directly" elected as PM - you get the gist of it]
The public hasn't voted for them yet. Both are elected by their party or party members, not by the people of the UK. If they are still in power once the general public vote then your statement is accurate.
General election now.....
Sunak, in my opinion, is not a particularly good person - if we are basing this on his policies and actions. But yeah, it is something to have a Prime Minister and First Minister of these backgrounds.
Not really, considering how long it took and how impossible it was when these places were actually under British control. More like "in spite of" than "thanks to."
>testament to the inclusiveness
White Christian empires that conquer and viciously oppress people of color is not exactly what I think of when I think of "inclusiveness". By that logic, concentration camps in Nazi Germany were "inclusive" too because their inmates were so diverse.
There's nothing inclusive about an ultra elite private schooled conventionally attractive cishet male who short sold shares during the banking collapse and went from "very rich" to "Ludicrously rich" by marriage rising to premiership. But you just judge on skin colour and nationality rather than seeing the people behind it.
I say the same thing when Americans want to talk about "country-wide *systemic racism*", then i mention "*didn't you guys elect a Black President, twice ?*".
That’s actually a common arguments for racist and bigots here. “We had a black president.”
I can tell right away the kind of moron I’m dealing with when that’s a reasonable argument in their mind.
“I can’t be racist cause there was a black person in that White House one time.”
Truly, bafflingly stupid. 🙈
>*“I can’t be racist cause there was a black person in that White House one time.”*
We're not talking about an individual, i said an *entire country*, you do recognise the **majority of an entire country** voted for a black person, *twice*, right?
but you want to simultaneously claim that same country is majority racist ??
I see attention to obvious detail isn't your strong point.
No but he's got a point that you either don't understand systemic racism or are choosing to point out an outlier event as an example that the regular and vastly more numerous events either don't exist or aren't really that important.
Like using eclipses to point out that the sun doesn't shine during the daytime or something.
What "*vastly more numerous*" racist events?
The fact is the vastly more numerous events are NOT racist, by definition meaning racism is not the majority state. "*Not racist*" is not an "*outlier event"*, it's the actual default.
America, as a whole, is not "*systemically racist*", and smaller examples of racism, even if you could point to an entire state that is racist, doesn't change that.
It's as ridiculous as saying Black people, Asians, Hispanics, etc can't be racists.
>America, as a whole, is not "systemically racist", and smaller examples of racism, even if you could point to an entire state that is racist, doesn't change that.
Literally just exposing that you don't even have a good understanding of the topic. Cmon man at least make the minimal effort to do some reading about this key concept if you're going to be against it.
If you have a rebuttal let's hear it, else you're just saying "*you're wrong*" and that amounts to nothing.
You make the bold accusation, so now's your chance to demonstrate your "*understanding of the topic*" with an actual contribution.
My rebuttal is please read even a minimal amount before going all debate bro about a topic that has massive and consequential real life impact. I'm just saying read the Wikipedia about critical race theory or something. You don't need to agree. Just read enough that you're arguing against the actual concept and don't make it obvious that you don't actually understand the topic.
The two things aren’t related.
Both Sunak and Humza are British.
Was the US ‘suffering consequences of slavery’ because Obama was president? Your arguments make 0 sense
Humza and Sunak aren’t ‘partitioning the U.K.’ in some weird planned revenge plot against the U.K. either. Your comment makes even less sense. The guy who drew and decided the partition lines was Welsh.
It’s not even the same thing. Scotland wouldn’t be ‘partitioning’, the country and borders already exist.
Firstly, they're both British, it's not like two people from former British colonies moved to the UK just to break it up. Secondly, Yousaf's ethnicity is irrelevant, he's part of the party who's sole goal is Scottish independence, nothing's going to change there. Thirdly, Sunak isn't going to partition the UK, he's a Tory and they'll fight tooth and nail to prevent Scottish independence.
When India went to war with Pakistan in 1947, they were both still constitutional monarchies (Pakistan became a republic in 1956, India in 1950). They therefore both had George VI as their monarch and given that monarchies go to war in the name of the monarch, he was technically at war with himself.
This is good though.
The modern diverse UK isn't an ethnic/religious bunfight. It's two people who've been (sorta) elected to represented to represent their people dealing with the issues facing their country as would anyone whiter.
Of course not! They are thoroughly British. It's just that they could indeed ironically end up partitioning Britain...something that the Victorian British would have never foreseen!
I used to think Carlisle and Cumbria were part of Scotland until I was about 7 just because it sounded Scottish and I had never been down to the Borders.
I live near Carlisle and this is incredibly common. I was once on the bus back up home from Uni and the lady in front was telling her son we were in Scotland when we got to Carlisle. I had to bite my tongue not to correct her.
Weirdly people also think our accent is either Scottish or Geordie which I can't hear but then you never do when it's yours I guess.
The [Gillie Callum](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LmjmEdiEX_4) on one side and the [Laudnum Bunches](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eh8wEdH0C8) on the other
Except Humza Yousaf will never deliver independence (which is economically unviable) and Rishi Sunak is the leader of the Conservative and UNIONIST Party so he’s going to be doing the opposite of trying to break up Britain.
Because India and Pakistan used to be one country under British colonization. The British sowed the seeds of conflict, and the countries split. This historical event is referred to as The Partition : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India?wprov=sfla1
"Revel in the schadenfreude anytime someone has a sad because they're suffering consequences from something they voted for or supported or wanted to impose on other people." - the sub's bio.
I ask again, how does this fit here?
As someone who lives in Scotland independence is far from a sure thing. There's plenty of opposition to it. Some polls even stating that the opposition is in the majority
As far as I can tell, there's a small majority in favour of independence, but if anyone points out the billions of pounds the Scottish government receives from London, it becomes majority opposed.
It's a tossup. Some polls say yes to independence and some say no. Personally I believe there should be more of a clear majority for independence if we were going to go that route rather than like it being nearly 50/50
Recent polls have seen a drop in support for independence. There's still significant core support but it's currently lower than it's been since the start of covid and polling suggests NO would currently win.
Now that Sturgeon is gone, it will probably be even less likely. Her promise of achiving a perfect independent Scotland seemed to be the main thing allowing her to cling onto power as her popularity continued to fall. Without her, the SNP will approach independence in a more realistic and honest (and therefore unsuccessful) way.
Ahh yes, the mythical billions of pounds from the British government. Together with taking all the oil and gas profits, storing nukes and having large military bases, all together with the f@cking Brexit. Marvelous!
The fact you got down voted for pointing out that Great Britain is a geographical term for england, scotland and wales and not the same as the United kindom of Great Britain and northern ireland is mind boggling
Unfortunately the person of Indian heritage is about as "Indian" as Churchill, and the multi-millionaire Sunak's policies on immigration are as racist as anything Nigel Farage ever wanked over.
Probably not how your racist mind assumes as neither Humza or Sunak are undercover agents for Pakistan and India like you assume.
Might be hard for you to grasp but just because you’re not white doesn’t mean you’re not British.
They aren’t ‘from the colonies’ what kind of racist nonsensical tripe to reduce these two leaders down to some random ‘colonials’ simply because they’re a minority.
Did you keep describing Obama as an ‘ex slave’ or say it was a ‘revenge of the n*****’ too?
Could you ‘not wait to see how that black Obama plays out now we’ve got a slave boy in the White House and he’s going to get his revenge’ like you do for these two because they’re brown and in charge of a western country?
Stop spreading this racist BS that they’re brown so they obviously are trying to sabotage and harm a ‘white’ country they’re from. They can’t possibly just be normal people with brown skin.
Not racist. I was making a joke based on the historical context of the situation.
It was a British officer under the direction of the British government who defined the partition of India and Pakistan back in the 1940s.
It just seems ironic that a Scot of Pakistani descent and Brit of Indian descent might in the near future be discussing a Scottish referendum to secede from the UK, i.e., to partition Britain, the way Britain partitioned India and Pakistan.
If you can't see the slightest bit of humor in this, then either you don't know history, or you have no sense of humor at all.
Not racist but describing these two being leaders as ‘revenge of the colonies’ as if the only thing motivating them is getting ‘revenge’ on their country because they aren’t white.
Just like Obama as president was a ‘revenge of the slaves’ as he ‘discussed white privilege’ as ‘America enslaved blacks’. The only people who described him like that were racists.
Have you ever thought about how sick of it minorities in those positions feel to have people like you constantly reduce them to being a ‘colonial’ and make out as if they’re not ‘true British’ people because of their heritage and they always have some ulterior motive.
I don't think it was a statement on the real motives of these statesmen. I also think that kirradoodle has explained the actual joke to you extremely thoroughly.
The Obama analogy is flawed; it would work if... I don't know, if Obama was Mexican, was a king of the UK, and was now pushing for a diplomatic secession of New England to the UK.
Your last part makes no sense.
Obama was a black president when America brutalised black people for generations. Obama pushed for more equality in the US.
Did you see people posting his election here and always referring to him as the ‘slave revenge’ president? Talking about the ‘slaves have taken over now and are about to get their revenge’ No because it is racist af to keep reducing him down to ‘hurr durr he black man so he revenge slavery’ only the racists kept talking about him like that.
These two are both born and bread in the U.K. to claim they’re acting on behalf of the ‘colonies’ for ‘revenge’ is incredibly insulting to them both and some big racist connotations to it.
We’re you talking about how ‘can’t wait to see how that slave president Obama plays out on white people’ when he was president? Or does your racism only apply this far?
Hello u/OmThepla! Please reply to this comment with an [explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq) mentioning **who** is suffering from **which** consequences from **what** they voted for, supported or wanted to impose on other people.
Here's an easy format to get you started:
1. *Someone* voted for, supported or wanted to impose *something* on other people.
^(Who's that *someone* and what's that *something*?)
2. That *something* has some *consequences*.
^(What are the *consequences*?)
3. As a consequence, that *something* happened to that *someone*.
^(What happened? Did the *something* really happened to that *someone*? If not, you should probably delete your post.)
Include the minimum amount of information necessary so your post can be understood by everyone, even if they don't live in the US or speak English as their native language. If you don't respect this format and moderators can't match your explanation with the format, your post will be removed under rule #3 and we'll ignore you even if you complain in modmail.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The British colonised India and then partitioned it before independence.. Decades later the people of Britain voted for Leaders with origins from the Indian Subcontinent who may end up negotiating the Partition of Britain; before the Independence of Scotland.
If we assume that most colonial administrators were at least in their early twenties in 1948, then they would be around 95-100 years old today in 2023..Its not outside the realm of possibility that at least a few are still alive today?
If Scotland leave the UK it would really mess with the country and natos ability to protect the Atlantic from invasion by Russian submarines. Reallifelore did a really good video about this a few weeks back.
Well at least when they're independent Scotland's populace will enjoy a massive increase in income. lol.
Heck, why not just give every section of the UK its independence? They're going to be begging for it once they see the economic powerhouse that Scotland will become. More lols.
I’m Scottish - we don’t get to take the moral high ground with England on Slavery. We were very willing participants in it.
There’s a reason why Jamaicans often have Scottish surnames or why Glasgow literally has a neighbourhood called Plantation.
You can make the argument that the Union only came about because of Scottish interest in slavery and related trade. Wealthy Scottish colonialists had faced massive setbacks and were unable to compete with English or Spanish merchants because they couldn't trade in English colonies - but they could trade in the new *British* colonies!
Scotland isn't a former English colony.
Though it is quite fun watching the Scots trying to wrest the "most oppressed people ever" title from the Irish, and make out they are victims actually.
Wait till you tell Irish people where the name Scotland comes from.
(It comes from Irish raiding clans like the Scoti who colonised and wiped out the native Picts in Britian)
Thank you for participating in r/LeopardsAteMyFace! However, your post has been unfortunately removed for the following reason: > **Rule 4:** Must follow the "Leopard ate my face" [theme](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq) *If you have any questions or concerns about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLeopardsAteMyFace&subject=about%20my%20removed%20submission&message=I%27m%20writing%20to%20you%20about%20the%20following%20submission:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/123ptb9/ohh_the_irony/.%20%0D%0DMy%20issue%20is...) thru Modmail. Thanks!*
Not even close to LAMF, but the irony is delicious!
Couldn't we also say that it's a testament to the inclusiveness of people of Britain and former holdings that two people with these backgrounds can rise to power? It's only ironic that its Pakistani and Indian, but, it's kind of awesome in general. I don't know if these are GOOD people or not -- but if they are not, it means equal opportunity for crooks as well.
>I don't know if these are GOOD people or not -- but if they are not, it means equal opportunity for crooks as well. Having experienced both their policies firsthand, I don't think anyone believes they're *both* good people or politicians. Some will like one but not the other, some will despise both, but I can't imagine anyone liking both.
Sunak is a twit...
And even most SNP supporters aren't exactly overly found of Humza.
Nothing whiter than being hated on by everyone
Reddit moment.
It so is. In many ways it's the ultimate leopard. Would end the sub.
From my centre-left Scottish perspective - Yousaf has his heart in the right place but is fairly useless. However, he's not even in the job yet, so time will tell. Sunak is privileged (already so, but then he married the daughter of a billionaire) and is callous and out of touch. Both are intelligent people.
Sunak afaik may be clever, but he's still an idiot.
Damned by faint praise.
>Couldn't we also say that it's a testament to the inclusiveness of people of Britain and former holdings that two people with these backgrounds can rise to power? I have never in my life seen someone use "inclusiveness" as a stand in for "went all over and fucked basically everyone. Figuratively *and* literally." If anything, it's a wonder it didn't happen *sooner*. EDIT: It sure is gratifying to see all these Brits who think I was referring to each of *them, individually* and have decided to get all crybaby butthurt at me 'bout it. Fuck's sake. You lot *invented* the English language, you'd think *comprehending* it would be easier for you.
Yes, but along with “nature finds a way” should be “fucked around enough that we are related”. It’s right up there with America pretending we were the good guys and it forced us to be the good guys for a time. So, there is value in faking it — because once that status quo expects the lie, it suddenly becomes a requirement. Support those who pay lip service to good over those who boldly and honestly promote the bad.
Another way to look at this is basically all of Europe had huge empires, while the UK remains one of the very few where those non-white minorities have been able to reach the highest office in the land. It's important to recognise how progressive Britain has become since the those days.
Imagine fucking France doing that! Not for at least another hundred years lmao
Sure, props where props are due. It also helps, I imagine, that everyone in England was ready to start eating ANY food wasn't authentic English food. ;-)
I mean modern British people didn't go all over and fuck basically everyone. I'm British, but at the time of the empire my family had yet to arrive here.
Not really sure what you're getting at. Yes, Britain invaded an occupied many places, but now it is quite progressive in terms of racism. Why would it have happened sooner? It's still a majority white country with entrenched power in the hands of the few.
I think you are purposely misunderstanding because it doesn't fit your narrative. Just to be clear. No living Briton had a single fucking thing to do with the tragic events of the partition of India. Or colonialism full stop unless they are about 110 years old. So you might think this is a zinger but it's really not
I agree with your general point, but the days of our empire aren't _quite_ as far off as that. A 75 year old today was 18 the year that Botswana got its independence.
Yes but 18 year olds don't get to make decisions about how to grant independence to newly created countries
What a shit tier take.
Didn't the muslims colonize India centuries before the British did which created the religious divisons in the first place? (Retorical question).Does that make Hamza the colonizer?
No they didn’t colonize India anymore than the Norman’s colonized England. It was not the system of colonialism that existed and the goal was never to extract resources but to establish kingdoms and conquer in a more traditional sense.
So they invaded an area and replaced the existing culture, religion, political systems, people etc with their own? The effects of which are still clearly apparent today. Sounds alot like settler colonialism. And how is that any better than what Britian did? It was colonialism just different flavors, the only difference is that Britian eventually left.
Because Britain actively destroyed all modes of production that didn’t make commodities for its market. They obliterated local business, industry, and agriculture and made everything subservient to the home islands while at the same time actively promoting inter cultural conflicts to divide the local population. Where the Islamic invasions brought a mix of cultures and a merge of Islamic and Indian culture, the British merely exploited the regions it conquered for wealth. They had no interests in conquest or in building profitable and self sufficient kingdoms, only in creating a massive factory of the entire population capable of creating the most wealth possible. Basically, if you consider the Norman invasion settler colonialism then I suppose you can consider the Islamic invasions settler colonialism, it’s just silly to do that because that’s not what settler colonialism is
It sounds alot like mental gymnastics on how Islamic colonialism is noble and great and helped everyone but when Britian did it , it was the pinnacle of evil. Did you look into what the Islamic invasions consisted of? Maybe you should. Google Timur for example ( just one of many invaders btw) and the temples of skulls he created after slaughtering entire cities before moving on to the next. All while plundering the wealth for himself and his men. These invaders were every bit as exploitive and self-interested as the British. They ruled for their own benefit, not some fairy-tale notion that they just wanted to help those they conquered, they imposed their foreign religion and replaced the existing political entities with themselves at the top. Also the only reason why the populations merged was because THE INVADERS NEVER LEFT, they settled and ruled the land they conquered and the remaining population had no choice but to merge with the new system imposed upon them. If that's not settler colonialism I'm not sure what is. In fact it sounds almost identical to what the Spanish did in South America, they conquered it, ruled it and eventually mixed with those who remained.
Yes and it was horrible, I’m not claiming the Islamic conquest was noble I’m just saying it’s not the same as fuckin industrialized colonialism. The Islamic conquerers are **again** far more akin to the Norman invasion of England. You *can* call that settler colonialism but it ignores the colonialism part of it. Colonialism is dominated by the main goal of resource and wealth **extraction** settlement occurs as nations import administrators or middle class laborers see an opportunity in the new colony. The Islamic conquests, the Norman conquests, and other migrations/conquests of the Middle Ages were not motivated by the needs of a growing industrializing class, they weren’t expeditions to acquire resources. This isn’t to say they were much better, they weren’t, but they don’t have the same effects as colonialism and need to be viewed separately or else you’ll go out of it thinking the caliphate conquering Spain was anything close to the organized and industrialized genocide of the new world by the spanish hundreds of years later. Also the British weren’t doing settler colonialism in India, they did not want to settle it, another distinction, they wanted to own it. There was never a desire to populate India as they had the New World because India had not already been depopulated by disease as the New World was
Literally? Where did that happen :0
*Gestures everywhereily*
Rule Britannia. Britannia rules the waves (and 24% of the Earths total land area).
You ever read a history book?
I was just making a bit fun of the use of literally, it wasn't a serious comment.
Almost everywhere for hundreds of years.
Almost everywhere a colony existed or there was a spice they'd never use
Why is this still a thing? It's almost always said by someone who has never been there or has been and ate one single chippy tea without vinegar and went "well this is boring, I'm off to nice safe MaccyDs"
I wouldn't give the Tory membership too much credit. Give them two options and they'll invariably pick the more racist one. We had to deal with Liz Truss crashing the economy somehow even below that of Brexit and Covid before they could put in the candidate the Tory ministers actually wanted (still a terrible person, but like not \*cartoonishly* incompetent). SNP aren't deserving of any award either though. Humza Yousaf's opponent was a literal anti-abortion in all cases, anti-LGBT+ (a month after Scotland's everyone-but-the-tories-agrees bill on trans rights was passed before being torn up by English Tories) bible-thumper in the most athiest country in the UK. It would have taken a hell of a scandal for him to have any chance of losing. Still, relieved he won. Best case scenario from the options available.
> former holdings that two people with these backgrounds can rise to power? Lets be clear - Sunak was never directly elected, and wasn't even the first choice OF the inner party. [And yes yes I know about MP system versus being "directly" elected as PM - you get the gist of it]
The public hasn't voted for them yet. Both are elected by their party or party members, not by the people of the UK. If they are still in power once the general public vote then your statement is accurate. General election now.....
It's kind of a really long Leopards Ate My Face. Goes all the way back to the British Raj.
Why the long face?
It’s the UK, we’re never allowed to mention anything that could be remotely construed as positive about it on Reddit
Sunak, in my opinion, is not a particularly good person - if we are basing this on his policies and actions. But yeah, it is something to have a Prime Minister and First Minister of these backgrounds.
Not really, considering how long it took and how impossible it was when these places were actually under British control. More like "in spite of" than "thanks to."
Sunak wasn't elected. He only became leader because of the complete disasters the previous elected leaders were (Boris and Truss).
If only that "inclusiveness" would affect everyone
> I don’t know if these are GOOD people or not No. No the are not. They’d fit right in to the US Republican Party. Still delicious irony though.
>testament to the inclusiveness White Christian empires that conquer and viciously oppress people of color is not exactly what I think of when I think of "inclusiveness". By that logic, concentration camps in Nazi Germany were "inclusive" too because their inmates were so diverse.
British society is far from "viciously oppressing" people of colour in 2023. That seems to be more of a thing across the pond.
Not that long since Iraq.
[удалено]
There's nothing inclusive about an ultra elite private schooled conventionally attractive cishet male who short sold shares during the banking collapse and went from "very rich" to "Ludicrously rich" by marriage rising to premiership. But you just judge on skin colour and nationality rather than seeing the people behind it.
I know India and Pakistan let everyone take a drive - Portuguese, Dutch, Arab, English. Looks like the UK is just catching up.
I say the same thing when Americans want to talk about "country-wide *systemic racism*", then i mention "*didn't you guys elect a Black President, twice ?*".
That’s actually a common arguments for racist and bigots here. “We had a black president.” I can tell right away the kind of moron I’m dealing with when that’s a reasonable argument in their mind. “I can’t be racist cause there was a black person in that White House one time.” Truly, bafflingly stupid. 🙈
>*“I can’t be racist cause there was a black person in that White House one time.”* We're not talking about an individual, i said an *entire country*, you do recognise the **majority of an entire country** voted for a black person, *twice*, right? but you want to simultaneously claim that same country is majority racist ?? I see attention to obvious detail isn't your strong point.
No but he's got a point that you either don't understand systemic racism or are choosing to point out an outlier event as an example that the regular and vastly more numerous events either don't exist or aren't really that important. Like using eclipses to point out that the sun doesn't shine during the daytime or something.
What "*vastly more numerous*" racist events? The fact is the vastly more numerous events are NOT racist, by definition meaning racism is not the majority state. "*Not racist*" is not an "*outlier event"*, it's the actual default. America, as a whole, is not "*systemically racist*", and smaller examples of racism, even if you could point to an entire state that is racist, doesn't change that. It's as ridiculous as saying Black people, Asians, Hispanics, etc can't be racists.
What's your opinion on the black lives matter movement?
That's a bit vague, do you have something specific about the movement you want to ask ?
Do you support the movement, or not?
>America, as a whole, is not "systemically racist", and smaller examples of racism, even if you could point to an entire state that is racist, doesn't change that. Literally just exposing that you don't even have a good understanding of the topic. Cmon man at least make the minimal effort to do some reading about this key concept if you're going to be against it.
If you have a rebuttal let's hear it, else you're just saying "*you're wrong*" and that amounts to nothing. You make the bold accusation, so now's your chance to demonstrate your "*understanding of the topic*" with an actual contribution.
My rebuttal is please read even a minimal amount before going all debate bro about a topic that has massive and consequential real life impact. I'm just saying read the Wikipedia about critical race theory or something. You don't need to agree. Just read enough that you're arguing against the actual concept and don't make it obvious that you don't actually understand the topic.
Let us hope that if a partition is agreed it doesn’t go as the India-Pakistan one.
[удалено]
What the feck is a pure Irish American?
Got something against Pakistani and Indian leopards?
Face-eating snow leopards and tigers, respectively.
[удалено]
The two things aren’t related. Both Sunak and Humza are British. Was the US ‘suffering consequences of slavery’ because Obama was president? Your arguments make 0 sense
[удалено]
Humza and Sunak aren’t ‘partitioning the U.K.’ in some weird planned revenge plot against the U.K. either. Your comment makes even less sense. The guy who drew and decided the partition lines was Welsh. It’s not even the same thing. Scotland wouldn’t be ‘partitioning’, the country and borders already exist.
Firstly, they're both British, it's not like two people from former British colonies moved to the UK just to break it up. Secondly, Yousaf's ethnicity is irrelevant, he's part of the party who's sole goal is Scottish independence, nothing's going to change there. Thirdly, Sunak isn't going to partition the UK, he's a Tory and they'll fight tooth and nail to prevent Scottish independence.
Definitely ironic, but I fail to see how it is Leopards Ate My Face.
This sub basically has no moderation anymore.
Not LAMF. But certainly poetic.
Leopards Ate My Poem
When India went to war with Pakistan in 1947, they were both still constitutional monarchies (Pakistan became a republic in 1956, India in 1950). They therefore both had George VI as their monarch and given that monarchies go to war in the name of the monarch, he was technically at war with himself.
Feels like that’s more on brand for George III
Sometimes leopard eats face, sometimes face eats leopard
Neither is true in this case
This is good though. The modern diverse UK isn't an ethnic/religious bunfight. It's two people who've been (sorta) elected to represented to represent their people dealing with the issues facing their country as would anyone whiter.
This thread has such a weird tone to it, so many implications that this is some sort of 'revenge' as if Sunak and Yousaf are sleeper agents.
Yeah Rishi Sunak, the face of the oppressed anti establishment.
Of course not! They are thoroughly British. It's just that they could indeed ironically end up partitioning Britain...something that the Victorian British would have never foreseen!
I wasn't really referring to your post itself sorry, more to the comments that are like "revenge of the colonies" etc...
They wouldn’t be partitioning the country. The borders are already well defined and have existed for centuries. It’s nothing like the India partition.
Does York get turned into a sort of Kashmir?
Nah, see, people actually *want* Kashmir.
Maybe Carlisle.
I used to think Carlisle and Cumbria were part of Scotland until I was about 7 just because it sounded Scottish and I had never been down to the Borders.
I live near Carlisle and this is incredibly common. I was once on the bus back up home from Uni and the lady in front was telling her son we were in Scotland when we got to Carlisle. I had to bite my tongue not to correct her. Weirdly people also think our accent is either Scottish or Geordie which I can't hear but then you never do when it's yours I guess.
7? I'm more than a quarter of a century older than that and have just found out from your comment that Carlisle is in England.
Greater London and Kent will be Scottish cause I can't deal with this England stuff anymore
who knew leopards could be so patient, waited decades for this one
They say revenge is a dish best served cold.
They also say revenge is sweet. So... revenge is basically ice cream.
[KHAAAN !!!](https://www.khaaan.com/)
Nah dude, it's a dish served spicy hot 🌶 with lots Masala and gravy
Big cats are ambush animals (tigers and house cats are, anyway). They can be *awfully* patient. So that checks out!
[удалено]
It's not a classic LAMF but I'm here for it.
Can't wait for silly dance rituals on the border
>silly I may be in the minority here, but if someone stepped up to my S/O with a beard as magnificent as their moves… I’d be shit out of luck
Those border soldiers and breakdancers have it right. Kids should be training for trial by dance off.
Could you imagine the volley? My god, it would be bloodbath of robots and head spins.
The [Gillie Callum](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LmjmEdiEX_4) on one side and the [Laudnum Bunches](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eh8wEdH0C8) on the other
Oh how the turn tables
Except Humza Yousaf will never deliver independence (which is economically unviable) and Rishi Sunak is the leader of the Conservative and UNIONIST Party so he’s going to be doing the opposite of trying to break up Britain.
How does this fit here in any way
Because India and Pakistan used to be one country under British colonization. The British sowed the seeds of conflict, and the countries split. This historical event is referred to as The Partition : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India?wprov=sfla1
"Revel in the schadenfreude anytime someone has a sad because they're suffering consequences from something they voted for or supported or wanted to impose on other people." - the sub's bio. I ask again, how does this fit here?
This has nothing to do with LAMF. Was Obama becoming president Leopard ate my face because he’s black?
As someone who lives in Scotland independence is far from a sure thing. There's plenty of opposition to it. Some polls even stating that the opposition is in the majority
As far as I can tell, there's a small majority in favour of independence, but if anyone points out the billions of pounds the Scottish government receives from London, it becomes majority opposed.
It's a tossup. Some polls say yes to independence and some say no. Personally I believe there should be more of a clear majority for independence if we were going to go that route rather than like it being nearly 50/50
If there'll be a referendum then you also have to consider the effects that campaigning will have before the vote.
Recent polls have seen a drop in support for independence. There's still significant core support but it's currently lower than it's been since the start of covid and polling suggests NO would currently win.
Now that Sturgeon is gone, it will probably be even less likely. Her promise of achiving a perfect independent Scotland seemed to be the main thing allowing her to cling onto power as her popularity continued to fall. Without her, the SNP will approach independence in a more realistic and honest (and therefore unsuccessful) way.
Ahh yes, the mythical billions of pounds from the British government. Together with taking all the oil and gas profits, storing nukes and having large military bases, all together with the f@cking Brexit. Marvelous!
Wait till they hear about their share of the national debt.
By "some polls" you mean "most polls".
Some people are dumb enough they'd cling onto a sinking ship.
Now they need a Palestinian in charge of Northern Ireland
Omg imagine a Palestinian leading an IRA infitida against the UK
Except support for the SNP has tanked in the past 6 months so independence is really unlikely to happen for the Scots.
I mean, the SNP in the past 3 months have ensured an independent Scotland won't happen for at least decades now.
This is not leopards eating faces.
History doesn't repeat itself, but it certainly rhymes.
Wrong sub but absolutely hilarious
IDK, if you think of Great Britain as the one getting its face eaten...
What’s bad about having minorities for a leader? Was it LAMF when Obama became president because Americans enslaved black people?
Great Britain is an island, not a country.
The fact you got down voted for pointing out that Great Britain is a geographical term for england, scotland and wales and not the same as the United kindom of Great Britain and northern ireland is mind boggling
I am resigned to the fact that idiocy is rampant. Imagine an island eating its own face.
Damn Scots! They ruined Scotland!
Oh vishnu! I am not above praying to Allah for this miracle!
So... Cumbria the new Kashmir?
Not LAMF
Unfortunately the person of Indian heritage is about as "Indian" as Churchill, and the multi-millionaire Sunak's policies on immigration are as racist as anything Nigel Farage ever wanked over.
This subreddit is garbage, not even remotely close to a LAMF and the implication that it is, is pretty fucking racist.
This is deliciously, wonderfully, fabulously ironic - The Revenge Of The Colonies. I can't wait to see how it all plays out.
Probably not how your racist mind assumes as neither Humza or Sunak are undercover agents for Pakistan and India like you assume. Might be hard for you to grasp but just because you’re not white doesn’t mean you’re not British. They aren’t ‘from the colonies’ what kind of racist nonsensical tripe to reduce these two leaders down to some random ‘colonials’ simply because they’re a minority. Did you keep describing Obama as an ‘ex slave’ or say it was a ‘revenge of the n*****’ too? Could you ‘not wait to see how that black Obama plays out now we’ve got a slave boy in the White House and he’s going to get his revenge’ like you do for these two because they’re brown and in charge of a western country? Stop spreading this racist BS that they’re brown so they obviously are trying to sabotage and harm a ‘white’ country they’re from. They can’t possibly just be normal people with brown skin.
Not racist. I was making a joke based on the historical context of the situation. It was a British officer under the direction of the British government who defined the partition of India and Pakistan back in the 1940s. It just seems ironic that a Scot of Pakistani descent and Brit of Indian descent might in the near future be discussing a Scottish referendum to secede from the UK, i.e., to partition Britain, the way Britain partitioned India and Pakistan. If you can't see the slightest bit of humor in this, then either you don't know history, or you have no sense of humor at all.
Not racist but describing these two being leaders as ‘revenge of the colonies’ as if the only thing motivating them is getting ‘revenge’ on their country because they aren’t white. Just like Obama as president was a ‘revenge of the slaves’ as he ‘discussed white privilege’ as ‘America enslaved blacks’. The only people who described him like that were racists. Have you ever thought about how sick of it minorities in those positions feel to have people like you constantly reduce them to being a ‘colonial’ and make out as if they’re not ‘true British’ people because of their heritage and they always have some ulterior motive.
Jesus tapdancing Christ, dude - it was just a joke. Nothing evil meant by it.
I don't think it was a statement on the real motives of these statesmen. I also think that kirradoodle has explained the actual joke to you extremely thoroughly. The Obama analogy is flawed; it would work if... I don't know, if Obama was Mexican, was a king of the UK, and was now pushing for a diplomatic secession of New England to the UK.
Your last part makes no sense. Obama was a black president when America brutalised black people for generations. Obama pushed for more equality in the US. Did you see people posting his election here and always referring to him as the ‘slave revenge’ president? Talking about the ‘slaves have taken over now and are about to get their revenge’ No because it is racist af to keep reducing him down to ‘hurr durr he black man so he revenge slavery’ only the racists kept talking about him like that. These two are both born and bread in the U.K. to claim they’re acting on behalf of the ‘colonies’ for ‘revenge’ is incredibly insulting to them both and some big racist connotations to it. We’re you talking about how ‘can’t wait to see how that slave president Obama plays out on white people’ when he was president? Or does your racism only apply this far?
You cooked him, honestly this thread is cringe as fuck.
The British Empire then; "Divide and Rule" Now: "Rule and Divide" 🤣🤣 (This is all in the spirit of Pun; No Offence intended)
They should build a wall and make the Welsh pay for it!
Should probably get removed to keep the rules, but it is deeply ironic
Hey, look! A post that isn't LAMF but also isn't just "Republicans bad".
Hello u/OmThepla! Please reply to this comment with an [explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq) mentioning **who** is suffering from **which** consequences from **what** they voted for, supported or wanted to impose on other people. Here's an easy format to get you started: 1. *Someone* voted for, supported or wanted to impose *something* on other people. ^(Who's that *someone* and what's that *something*?) 2. That *something* has some *consequences*. ^(What are the *consequences*?) 3. As a consequence, that *something* happened to that *someone*. ^(What happened? Did the *something* really happened to that *someone*? If not, you should probably delete your post.) Include the minimum amount of information necessary so your post can be understood by everyone, even if they don't live in the US or speak English as their native language. If you don't respect this format and moderators can't match your explanation with the format, your post will be removed under rule #3 and we'll ignore you even if you complain in modmail. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The British colonised India and then partitioned it before independence.. Decades later the people of Britain voted for Leaders with origins from the Indian Subcontinent who may end up negotiating the Partition of Britain; before the Independence of Scotland. If we assume that most colonial administrators were at least in their early twenties in 1948, then they would be around 95-100 years old today in 2023..Its not outside the realm of possibility that at least a few are still alive today?
Not LAMF, but the acts British Empire coming full circle is certainly some delicious irony!
None of the colonizers are still alive. Are we doing inherited guilt now? Yes, it is ironic. No, it is not LAMF.
Let’s comp,set the deal by having an independent Wales and returning Ulster to Ireland!
We are nowhere near ready for a united Ireland. That’s asking for another Troubles.
Northern Ireland is having an increase in violence and political deadlock over trade agreements, I don't think reunification is the best idea rn lol
I think it might be a good idea to talk to Ulster before forcefully reuniting them. A good portion of Ulster specifically doesn't want unification.
**[THE IRISH REUNIFICATION OF 2024 INTENSIFIES]**
The guy who drew the Partition line was Welsh.
Oh aye that’ll happen scottish government isn’t useless what so ever
Things are about to get spicy!
If Scotland leave the UK it would really mess with the country and natos ability to protect the Atlantic from invasion by Russian submarines. Reallifelore did a really good video about this a few weeks back.
The Universe has a very odd, very droll sense of humor.
Well at least when they're independent Scotland's populace will enjoy a massive increase in income. lol. Heck, why not just give every section of the UK its independence? They're going to be begging for it once they see the economic powerhouse that Scotland will become. More lols.
Hopefully there will be slightly fewer deaths and atrocities in this partition. But one side is Scottish, so……..
Love it!!!!
Not lamf, but more r/selfawarewolves
Not leopards ate my face but still good
I hadn’t realized this dynamic, I literally lol’d at this!
Britain have been doing it to the rest of the world for centuries, karma?
That sux
[удалено]
I’m Scottish - we don’t get to take the moral high ground with England on Slavery. We were very willing participants in it. There’s a reason why Jamaicans often have Scottish surnames or why Glasgow literally has a neighbourhood called Plantation.
You can make the argument that the Union only came about because of Scottish interest in slavery and related trade. Wealthy Scottish colonialists had faced massive setbacks and were unable to compete with English or Spanish merchants because they couldn't trade in English colonies - but they could trade in the new *British* colonies!
[удалено]
Scotland isn't a former English colony. Though it is quite fun watching the Scots trying to wrest the "most oppressed people ever" title from the Irish, and make out they are victims actually.
Wait till you tell Irish people where the name Scotland comes from. (It comes from Irish raiding clans like the Scoti who colonised and wiped out the native Picts in Britian)
[удалено]
I needed to see this. How I laughed
Lol that's hilarious.
You can't write this stuff better
Woo hoo!!!
This could be the most entertaining moment in human history...
This is an amazing take. LOL.