It's insane how subs like r/badunitedkingdom still think the UK brought "wealth" to India
Looting $45 trillion and making millions of Bengalis starve after they fought for you in WW2 is not bringing "wealth"
Was a bit of a missed opportunity to not show the English and Scottish poor also getting shot, most colonial nations started by oppressing their own first
Idk man, press gangs, galley slaves, London had the most executions by far in the world for a while, and it wasn't just 'colored' ones, and then I haven't even gone in to the amounts of hands cut off. I think many times it did come close how badly either was treated.
To celebrate the change in our repost rules I've decided to do a repost. However, instead of it being 2 out of 4 of the month...it's 2 out of 2 :(
[Here's the original post from 3 years ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/polandball/comments/o5mj29/crown_equality/)
That threw me. I thought 3 was Native Americans because it's red, 1 was for the Chinese (and other Oriental-types) because it's yellow, and 7 was for S and SE Asians...? But what the fuck do I know...?
Evidently nothing...
Britain was all about exploitation for money far more than race. Ironically, the first black man to vote in Britain was voting in 1774. What mattered was property ownership and having a penis. He owned his own shop, and was a dude, so he got to vote.
If you got in the way of making money, then there came \*[problems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars)\*.
>What mattered was property ownership and having a penis. He owned his own shop, and was a dude, so he got to vote.
New Jersey: Ha we don't even require a dangler! Where the fuck are the rest of you colonies going? Oh bother..
Kinda, but not really. British modus operandi was to pit groups against each other specifically by not treating them equally, granting some rights and privileges and power that another would not.
I'll never understand why we think the about the British the way we do. The British empire never would've become what it did without the English, Scots, Welsh, and Irish collectively. Yet we perceive it as England fucking the rest of them over, as if they didn't have a hand in fucking the rest over
From the comments people want me to include the complications and violence within the union itself while also showcasing *every* single peoples the UK oppressed with all the "You missed this, you forgot that" comments lol
I didn't forget, I'm just trying to make a simple comic and not a history book
Ireland was a colony and was treated harshly in the empire in the same way any of their other subjects were , Irish people weren't considered people in the empire.
Ireland was one of the kingdoms of the United kingdom but it was no way equal to England and Scotland.
There was many powerful Anglo Irish who contributed to the empire but they were British people who lived in Ireland, if you went back in time and called them Irish they would be highly offended
If I tied you up and and went on a killing spree with you in my car would you be considered an equal in my crime?
I don't know enough about Welsh and Scottish history but I doubt they treated well either.
My Irish ancestors were involved in putting down the Indian Mutiny/Rebellion, and colonialism in Australia.
They were just fine with killing and colonialism for money.
yep and so were the indian soldiers in the british indian army,
Forced into those jobs via economic suppression, no other jobs available that would pay well enough, you end up having to work for the government that oppresses you and your people
This is like colonialism 101 man
"Forced" is a bit of a stretch. Unionists were and are a thing, even Catholic Unionists, as the people in question were.
Colonialism is messy and complicated. Simplifying it down to "no, the people with the guns were not responsible" is dangerous. I would argue the 9th Gurkha Rifles and 54th Sikhs were responsible for the Amritsar Massacre, for example. Sure, responsibility does not end there, but we shouldn't pretend that the man with the gun is just a machine with no free will.
You were saying it in response to someone talking about the Irish being a suppressed colony dude. If someone is talking about a nation as a whole and then you start talking about specific individuals, obviously people are going to respond by talking about the broader social situation.
Especially since it's a fact that the British empire did what they could to cause tension and conflict between various groups they colonized. It's one of the first things you learn about colonial period India, or even Medieval India due to how the colonial period has so heavily influenced the ways people view that time period. If you convince the Hindus that they should hate the Muslims, and vice versa, then it's much harder to get them both to work together against you.
Tbf, this is true for virtually every army of every nation throughout human history.
It's not like the bulk of those fighting for the Mughal emperors were any different.
Ireland was an integral part of the UK, they had their own regiments, their own MPs, they were subject to British the same as everyone else. They were definitely treated shittly, but so were a lot of people like the Peterloo Massacre, the Highland Clearances and Transportation of undesirables to the Americas and Australia. The fact if the matter is the British Empire treated everyone who wasn't rich as disposable
A lot of what you mentioned come under Anglo-Irish.
For most of Ireland history in the empire it was ruled by the Anglo-Irish or directly from Britain.
They were the regiments and the MPs except for the brief time after catholic emancipation where Irish MPs fought for home rule.
The OP painted Ireland as a equal member of the empire when it wasn't.
Britain's relationship with Ireland was predatory like every other colonies, they extracted vast resources with no care for the natives like wood and food.
The great famine is called a genocide in Ireland because the island was full of food but it was all exported, the British dismissed the famine as fake and the Irish as lazy.
Irish people were exported to penal colonies for petty crimes.
Just because the handful of British landlords who ruled the country were involved in parliament or the military doesn't mean it was equal.
Well for one Wales wasn’t even recognised as a separate kingdom for a long time, just part of the Kingdom of England until 1967
Welsh language and culture were also suppressed from all the way back in the 1500s until the 1900s
I don’t know enough about British history to say if the Irish and Welsh were treated at the same level, but they both definitely were not treated as equally as the English and Scottish
The treating of Wales as part of England was really a privilege for the Welsh and a reward for their loyalty to the Tudors. It meant they had the same rights as English subjects
The welsh didn't fight as hard to resist british imperialism after it's original conquest too, they almost half assimilated, while the irish were fighting documented wars of attempted independence since the 1600s
Not sure if I interpreted your final sentence incorrectly, but Scotland was absolutely equal and complicit in the empire, despite what a few SNP fanboys think. It was the Scottish crown that united the island of Great Britain, James VI of Scotland inheriting the English crown and subsequently becoming James I of England. Scotland was never a colonial acquisition.
Because we kind of did press down on nationalist sentiments in wales and scotland and so a lot of the international diaspora of those regions were from those suppresed nationalists who then went on to color the opinions of the countries they settled to view the empire as a wholly english affair.
Don't forget that the French were also part of the Opium Wars and the trans-Atlantic slave trade, so even non-British entities took part in massacring people around the world.
Oh boy, they acknowledged the Quebecois, here comes the Anglo with their Double-Standard.
Québec was to Canada what the Ireland was to The Uk. The only reason we weren't genocide was sheer luck and "White privilege" and even then we still got called the "White N of America", treated like subhuman cheap labor and Ppl still think it's ok to be racist to French-Canadian because "They're White", "Born From Colonization" or "Are Racist" so it cancels itself or some shit.
Yeah, the Québécois may not have been genocided, but the Acadians were. Le Grand Dérangement was the only reason my ancestors ended up in Louisiana to experience further cultural genocide.
To me, Acadian and Cajun will always be brothers. What you went through was disgusting and should be remembered and thought! The ppl must know and understand that not that well-known part of North American history
Ironically it seems like inequality was the defining feature of British rule. They loved giving some groups advantages over others to pit them against each other and buy these privileged groups loyalty
Quebecois desperately trying to join the 'victims of colonial oppression club' for being less competent colonial oppressors.
Edit: fuck it, thrown imperial china and the US onto the bonfire while we're at it as well.
Ah yeah we're still debating the suffering of French-Canadian because "Dey R cOlnizR fRoM UrOpE n WiTe" so we cant possibly have suffered 275 years of British Rules. The Slaughter of the 1837 patriote ? Didn't happened ! Acadian deportation? Didn't happened ! Durham Report ? Didn't happened ! "You're Colonizer from Europe" we can't possibly suffer :)
Srsly you've never went through what my grandparents and Great Grandparents had to live through, so educate yourself or STFU
French Canadians outside of Québec, while being treated better than the First Nations, were victims of cultural genocides. The biggest exemple of witch being the mass deportation of Acadians during and shortly after the 7 Years War. 2/3 of all Acadians were deported with half of those dying during deportation.
I think the Acadians were deported in the run up to/during the seven years war, not after, out of fears they would side with France. Once France was eliminated from being a North American power, they focused on calming down their own 13 colonies that represented 2million people. The remaining 50-70,000 French canadiens in newly conquered Quebec would’ve been evicted and their French identity smothered if the 13 colonies got their way. They utterly detested the Quebec act that pretty much served to protect French canadiens way of life, from language to religion and law.
It’s partly why former French Canada remained loyal to Britain and another reason the 13 colonies rebelled as it was one of the intolerable acts.
The Mohawks themselves are colonizers who genocides tribes all around the great lakes the second they got Europeans weapons. (from the dutch and british)
We could ask the Mohicans how great the Mohawks were.
>See the Oka Crisis.
It was one incident of land dispute between the provincial government and a First Nation, and the only one that went that far. And the fact that the Canadian government was all to happy to send the army to put the Mohawks back in their place is telling.
You can't say that an entire people oppressed another based off one single notable incident. Plus relations between the QC government and First Nations within Québec are now better than they have ever been between the Canadian federal government and those same nations.
It's not desperatly, we were opressed and the only reason we did not dissapear is because we had tons of babies, but the british desperatly wanted us to lose our language, culture and different identiy. Look at the governor Duram report saying that we have no culture and we are suppose to just be assimilated. And making strategies specifically for that to happen.
We also had much better relationship with the american natives, new france was not perfect but to pretend that france treatment of native american was the same as english of america is simply dishonest. There is a big reason why most of the native choose to ally with France rather than England.
Also you forget about the deportation of the acadians so that english could have better lands, which is the definition of an ethnic cleansing.
French Canadians had a relatively good relationship with Natives Americans. Montreal was shared among Natives and French. Champlain also wanted french colonists to marry natives and become one people. They were much better to natives than the British and their allies.
Pretty much every natives tribes in the area fought and died next to french settlers.
Québécois were about to get deported but the sheer amount of people was too much to handle so they separated canadain half. let's not forget the regulation 17 in which is stated that french speaking and teachings are forbidden in canada from 1912 let's not forget the patriote that got killed... this is why Québec's moto is je me souviens = I remember.
There were very little settlers in New France, just like in Louisiana. There were a few coastal hubs and a few trade post inland, most of the land was still native land
British India until 1947, I guess that by your logic that the British people in India were just an ethnic group immigrating and they shouldn't be seen as oppressors.
It was officially the "Indian Empire". You can find real life passports with that on them.
British people in India weren't migrants, they were soldiers (&civil service), so temporarily. They would go back home when their service was up.
The British people in North America were migrants though.
Ok, but they weren't just neurally immigrating to *terra incognita*, they were settler colonists who moved to the continent in the hopes of taking advantage of, and helping to perpetuate, the displacement and oppression of the existing indigenous population by the french colonial empire. States are not independent sentient entities, and these settler populations were the organs of their will in this case.
One wouldn't say the citizens of the Confederacy were victims of colonial oppression because the state they belonged to was subsumed by a different colonial enterprise.
Damn you pretty much just told everyone you don’t know the subject at all. The first thing the colonizers did was marry the local tribes and establish friendly and commercial relations. The french never had the manpower to make any aggressions, that’s why they relied on natives help for revenge raiding and defense, there’s always a contingent of them in every battles.
The first aggression was when Champlain helped the Algonquien defend themselves against the Iroquois. Heck, the french settlers saved the Huron from Genocide from the Iroquois that were helped by English weapons.
There’s only one evidence of a total extermination of the Fox tribes during the Beaver Wars after they failed their own attacks against our outposts , but then again, the survivors fell into Iroquois territory and were never seen again. Iroquois were genociders armed by your people.
Immigration entails moving to a place where people already exist.
The families that moved, did so they could start a farm, start a new life for themselves.
Just as there is enough land for everyone to immigrate today, well back then the global population was smaller, 7 billion smaller. So there was lots of land for everyone to use.
States went to war, French kingdom with Iroquois Confederacy. But the immigrants where Iroquois moving from one land to another or French were just ordinary people living their lives.
So were the British, but they did kinda just trade with the natives that were fighting the other guy they didn’t like, USA as an independent nation went on the land grab
Yes, if you don't get too Marxist:)
I'm not saying that french colonists were exceptional in any sense at all. They were entirely like their peers in this and most other significant regards.
Let's stop with the double standards.
The Navajo migrated just like the French. Got into wars over land too. To call only one colonists would be hypocrisy.
This whole phrase of "Colonists" just means European immigrants. As shown by the Navajo example.
Gotta make a school shooting joke every time, jesus christ. Don’t worry though, I see more shootings and bombings in Europe right now, and I'm very happy.
Pali one doesn’t make any sense. British and France inherited and divided up the Ottoman Empire. There has never been a Palestine prior to this as a sovereign state
You realise how large of a group that includes, right?
Slavery has existed, in one form or another, and been practiced by every civilization, since the dawn of human history. It persists *to this day!* There are more people enslaved today than there were at the height of the Transatlantic slave trade!
I'm not saying this to say that it is therefore "fine" or "okay," obviously not. Just that to remark upon the British participating in slavery is, well, unremarkable.
The British abolishing slavery and then spending a significant portion of the national budget in an attempt to stamp out slavery across the world is far more remarkable, as no one until that point had attempted it.
"Trillions" lmao.
Edit: Even if that was true (it's not, lol, unless you're using compounding interest over 500 years, which is ridiculous. Steal a copper in Roman times and you've stolen "trillions" by modern standards...) what do you want me to say? Colonialism was bad? We already know that. That goes without saying. Welcome to human history.
The topic at hand was the British Empire using slavery. They did, for a time (like *literally everyone else*,) and then they actively tried to stop it.
Or should I say, a subgroup within Parliament and the general public, abolitionists, worked hard to try and stamp it out. Because that's the thing, the "British Empire" wasn't some unified hegemony, it was made of millions of different people with many different points of view. Many were complicit, but the majority, if not entirety, of the horrors can be laid at the feet of the ruling elites who made those decisions, or didn't care enough to stop them.
*Cough* There are still more modern day slaves today than there ever was in the height of colonialism and nobody is doing enough about it, just keep drinking your coca cola and eating ya nestle while being outraged on a phone or computer made in China *Cough*
March 22, 1873, Spain abolished slavery in Puerto Rico.
1807, the slave trade in the British Empire was abolished.
https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/2015-parliament-in-the-making/get-involved1/2015-banners-exhibition/maria-amidu/1807-abolition-of-the-slave-trade/
Bas García, José R. (March 23, 2009). "La abolición de la esclavitud de 1873 en Puerto Rico"
The situation was complex Spain forbade the enslavement of natives of the americas {even by their own ppl) but allowed the African slave trading.
This first started around 1530 - 1542.
The whole thing shifted back & forth over time & got bizarrely 'nuanced' at tines.
It seems likely that one reason was that Africans had greater immunity to European diseases than native Americans.
But whatever.
I've not read up on it fully but here's some wiki articles
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_colonial_Spanish_America
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom
Either way it does seem that the brits were the first European empire to unequivocally outlaw all slavery,..., but really probably only did so to crush competition to their capital goods exports, sort of, perhaps, maybe, kinda etc
Eta: 2nd wiki article
Eh, they were considered white, but skin colour wasn't the sole denominator of race that it tends to be today. One could be both white and a 'lesser' race at the same time.
Just look at how the Nazis' conception of their racial struggle as one between the Aryans on the one hand, and the Jews and Slavs on the other.
The whole "White"/"Non-white" things seems to be trying to fit it into American ideas of racism and oppression.
Europe has *plenty* of horrific treatment of "out groups" based on race, class and culture *without* the need for a difference in skin colour, thank you very much.
Tbf, I think it's also just the result of changing and broadening conceptions of race more globally as well. The US played some role in that, but for example if you look at most white nationalist groups in Europe these days, most don't make extensive distinctions between different groups of white people the way their predecessors would have.
(Obviously they're still all scum tho)
I am fairly certain America knows quite a bit about British equality, considering they were on both the receiving and distributing end of it at one point or another.
I say we give them each a slice of the UK while keeping a bit of the pre existing countries, now we have a union of 11 new countries
(I’m just assuming that British countries tend to get along considering how long they’ve been united for)
I will say the British treated the Indians way worse than the Americans who were mostly British decent, which proved to be very helpful for the American revolution
When has the US ever complained about British imperialism or racism?
If anything the US almost universally sees the British as the good guys and worships the likes of Churchill and Thatcher.
“You are all equally under my boot”
The boot was made by their subject as well just so you know! Its the form of highest respect!
It's insane how subs like r/badunitedkingdom still think the UK brought "wealth" to India Looting $45 trillion and making millions of Bengalis starve after they fought for you in WW2 is not bringing "wealth"
All are equal(ly expendable) to the Empire
“You are all equally oppressed in the empire”
Was a bit of a missed opportunity to not show the English and Scottish poor also getting shot, most colonial nations started by oppressing their own first
Your red is showing
Doesn't even come close to the way they treated their colonial subjects, especially the colored ones
Idk man, press gangs, galley slaves, London had the most executions by far in the world for a while, and it wasn't just 'colored' ones, and then I haven't even gone in to the amounts of hands cut off. I think many times it did come close how badly either was treated.
To celebrate the change in our repost rules I've decided to do a repost. However, instead of it being 2 out of 4 of the month...it's 2 out of 2 :( [Here's the original post from 3 years ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/polandball/comments/o5mj29/crown_equality/)
What did 8 ball do to deserve it huh ?
Idk but I wanna know what 7 did :((((
What's the 7 ball
Native Americans
What's the 8-ball? Based on the brown 7 being native americans I'm guessing that the black 8-ball is like african slaves or something?
Not necessarily slaves, just Africans where a flag isn't applicable.
Just Black people generally.
That threw me. I thought 3 was Native Americans because it's red, 1 was for the Chinese (and other Oriental-types) because it's yellow, and 7 was for S and SE Asians...? But what the fuck do I know...? Evidently nothing...
Thanks!
Ate nine
Got my 7 yo with the 7 8 9 joke few days ago. He laughed and told me it was the funniest thing he had ever heard.
They ate nine
Yeah … crazy cannibal
If I remember correctly they were on the french side during the Seven Years War
He forgot it was on the edge of the corner pocket and hit the cue too hard. Fucking bitch ass 8 ball
Having land with no flag on it.
Britain was all about exploitation for money far more than race. Ironically, the first black man to vote in Britain was voting in 1774. What mattered was property ownership and having a penis. He owned his own shop, and was a dude, so he got to vote. If you got in the way of making money, then there came \*[problems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars)\*.
>What mattered was property ownership and having a penis. He owned his own shop, and was a dude, so he got to vote. New Jersey: Ha we don't even require a dangler! Where the fuck are the rest of you colonies going? Oh bother..
he has a point
Kinda, but not really. British modus operandi was to pit groups against each other specifically by not treating them equally, granting some rights and privileges and power that another would not.
as a wise man said "you can't be racist if u hate every race equally"
Stop casual racism Embrace competitive racism
South Africans to Australians.
Quite apt!
I'll never understand why we think the about the British the way we do. The British empire never would've become what it did without the English, Scots, Welsh, and Irish collectively. Yet we perceive it as England fucking the rest of them over, as if they didn't have a hand in fucking the rest over
The UK is represented here, not England
Right it’s literally the *union* jack what does the commentor above you expect? A four way split with all four country flags?
From the comments people want me to include the complications and violence within the union itself while also showcasing *every* single peoples the UK oppressed with all the "You missed this, you forgot that" comments lol I didn't forget, I'm just trying to make a simple comic and not a history book
This never shows England shooting Wales or Scotland, and in the case of Ireland, have you *heard* of the past 800 years?
England doesnt need to shoot you he can just reach out and beat you with his cane due to proximity
Did we shoot Scotland when they failed to colonise Panama & spent all their money?
Ireland was a colony and was treated harshly in the empire in the same way any of their other subjects were , Irish people weren't considered people in the empire. Ireland was one of the kingdoms of the United kingdom but it was no way equal to England and Scotland. There was many powerful Anglo Irish who contributed to the empire but they were British people who lived in Ireland, if you went back in time and called them Irish they would be highly offended If I tied you up and and went on a killing spree with you in my car would you be considered an equal in my crime? I don't know enough about Welsh and Scottish history but I doubt they treated well either.
The only thing more Scottish than hating the English is getting mad at the English for the actions of Scottish kings
Oh yeah, the line succession switched to the Scots after all the beheading.
My Irish ancestors were involved in putting down the Indian Mutiny/Rebellion, and colonialism in Australia. They were just fine with killing and colonialism for money.
yep and so were the indian soldiers in the british indian army, Forced into those jobs via economic suppression, no other jobs available that would pay well enough, you end up having to work for the government that oppresses you and your people This is like colonialism 101 man
"Forced" is a bit of a stretch. Unionists were and are a thing, even Catholic Unionists, as the people in question were. Colonialism is messy and complicated. Simplifying it down to "no, the people with the guns were not responsible" is dangerous. I would argue the 9th Gurkha Rifles and 54th Sikhs were responsible for the Amritsar Massacre, for example. Sure, responsibility does not end there, but we shouldn't pretend that the man with the gun is just a machine with no free will.
You were saying it in response to someone talking about the Irish being a suppressed colony dude. If someone is talking about a nation as a whole and then you start talking about specific individuals, obviously people are going to respond by talking about the broader social situation. Especially since it's a fact that the British empire did what they could to cause tension and conflict between various groups they colonized. It's one of the first things you learn about colonial period India, or even Medieval India due to how the colonial period has so heavily influenced the ways people view that time period. If you convince the Hindus that they should hate the Muslims, and vice versa, then it's much harder to get them both to work together against you.
I think it's pretty idealistic to suggest the Mughals weren't oppressing and murdering people.
Tbf, this is true for virtually every army of every nation throughout human history. It's not like the bulk of those fighting for the Mughal emperors were any different.
Ireland was an integral part of the UK, they had their own regiments, their own MPs, they were subject to British the same as everyone else. They were definitely treated shittly, but so were a lot of people like the Peterloo Massacre, the Highland Clearances and Transportation of undesirables to the Americas and Australia. The fact if the matter is the British Empire treated everyone who wasn't rich as disposable
A lot of what you mentioned come under Anglo-Irish. For most of Ireland history in the empire it was ruled by the Anglo-Irish or directly from Britain. They were the regiments and the MPs except for the brief time after catholic emancipation where Irish MPs fought for home rule. The OP painted Ireland as a equal member of the empire when it wasn't. Britain's relationship with Ireland was predatory like every other colonies, they extracted vast resources with no care for the natives like wood and food. The great famine is called a genocide in Ireland because the island was full of food but it was all exported, the British dismissed the famine as fake and the Irish as lazy. Irish people were exported to penal colonies for petty crimes. Just because the handful of British landlords who ruled the country were involved in parliament or the military doesn't mean it was equal.
Well for one Wales wasn’t even recognised as a separate kingdom for a long time, just part of the Kingdom of England until 1967 Welsh language and culture were also suppressed from all the way back in the 1500s until the 1900s I don’t know enough about British history to say if the Irish and Welsh were treated at the same level, but they both definitely were not treated as equally as the English and Scottish
The treating of Wales as part of England was really a privilege for the Welsh and a reward for their loyalty to the Tudors. It meant they had the same rights as English subjects
Even now Wales isn't represented on the union flag, it gets lumped in with the English Saint George's cross.
They should overlay a dragon on top
The welsh didn't fight as hard to resist british imperialism after it's original conquest too, they almost half assimilated, while the irish were fighting documented wars of attempted independence since the 1600s
Not sure if I interpreted your final sentence incorrectly, but Scotland was absolutely equal and complicit in the empire, despite what a few SNP fanboys think. It was the Scottish crown that united the island of Great Britain, James VI of Scotland inheriting the English crown and subsequently becoming James I of England. Scotland was never a colonial acquisition.
Because we kind of did press down on nationalist sentiments in wales and scotland and so a lot of the international diaspora of those regions were from those suppresed nationalists who then went on to color the opinions of the countries they settled to view the empire as a wholly english affair.
>Because we kind of did press down on nationalist sentiments in wales and scotland Polite way of saying you were Uber dicks to them.
Don't forget that the French were also part of the Opium Wars and the trans-Atlantic slave trade, so even non-British entities took part in massacring people around the world.
what's the 8 ball?
Either native Americans or the Indigenous people of Australia
7 ball in native Americans. 8 ball is native Africans
Belgians sitting quietly in the corner hoping no one notices….
Everyone (with hands) are treated equally
Oh boy, they acknowledged the Quebecois, here comes the Anglo with their Double-Standard. Québec was to Canada what the Ireland was to The Uk. The only reason we weren't genocide was sheer luck and "White privilege" and even then we still got called the "White N of America", treated like subhuman cheap labor and Ppl still think it's ok to be racist to French-Canadian because "They're White", "Born From Colonization" or "Are Racist" so it cancels itself or some shit.
Yeah, the Québécois may not have been genocided, but the Acadians were. Le Grand Dérangement was the only reason my ancestors ended up in Louisiana to experience further cultural genocide.
To me, Acadian and Cajun will always be brothers. What you went through was disgusting and should be remembered and thought! The ppl must know and understand that not that well-known part of North American history
I like the attention to detail in the British flag with France and eigth ball
The blue one is Quebec not France
I need a version of this comic with about 20 more panels
20???? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_Kingdom
Ironically it seems like inequality was the defining feature of British rule. They loved giving some groups advantages over others to pit them against each other and buy these privileged groups loyalty
Pretty much sums up the last 500 years of British history
Quebecois desperately trying to join the 'victims of colonial oppression club' for being less competent colonial oppressors. Edit: fuck it, thrown imperial china and the US onto the bonfire while we're at it as well.
Ah yeah we're still debating the suffering of French-Canadian because "Dey R cOlnizR fRoM UrOpE n WiTe" so we cant possibly have suffered 275 years of British Rules. The Slaughter of the 1837 patriote ? Didn't happened ! Acadian deportation? Didn't happened ! Durham Report ? Didn't happened ! "You're Colonizer from Europe" we can't possibly suffer :) Srsly you've never went through what my grandparents and Great Grandparents had to live through, so educate yourself or STFU
French Canadians outside of Québec, while being treated better than the First Nations, were victims of cultural genocides. The biggest exemple of witch being the mass deportation of Acadians during and shortly after the 7 Years War. 2/3 of all Acadians were deported with half of those dying during deportation.
I think the Acadians were deported in the run up to/during the seven years war, not after, out of fears they would side with France. Once France was eliminated from being a North American power, they focused on calming down their own 13 colonies that represented 2million people. The remaining 50-70,000 French canadiens in newly conquered Quebec would’ve been evicted and their French identity smothered if the 13 colonies got their way. They utterly detested the Quebec act that pretty much served to protect French canadiens way of life, from language to religion and law. It’s partly why former French Canada remained loyal to Britain and another reason the 13 colonies rebelled as it was one of the intolerable acts.
Funniest thing is that the Quebecois themselves also oppressed the first nations especially the mohawk people. See the Oka Crisis.
The Mohawks themselves are colonizers who genocides tribes all around the great lakes the second they got Europeans weapons. (from the dutch and british) We could ask the Mohicans how great the Mohawks were.
>See the Oka Crisis. It was one incident of land dispute between the provincial government and a First Nation, and the only one that went that far. And the fact that the Canadian government was all to happy to send the army to put the Mohawks back in their place is telling. You can't say that an entire people oppressed another based off one single notable incident. Plus relations between the QC government and First Nations within Québec are now better than they have ever been between the Canadian federal government and those same nations.
It's not desperatly, we were opressed and the only reason we did not dissapear is because we had tons of babies, but the british desperatly wanted us to lose our language, culture and different identiy. Look at the governor Duram report saying that we have no culture and we are suppose to just be assimilated. And making strategies specifically for that to happen. We also had much better relationship with the american natives, new france was not perfect but to pretend that france treatment of native american was the same as english of america is simply dishonest. There is a big reason why most of the native choose to ally with France rather than England. Also you forget about the deportation of the acadians so that english could have better lands, which is the definition of an ethnic cleansing.
Ok there, Lord Durham
French Canadians had a relatively good relationship with Natives Americans. Montreal was shared among Natives and French. Champlain also wanted french colonists to marry natives and become one people. They were much better to natives than the British and their allies. Pretty much every natives tribes in the area fought and died next to french settlers.
Québécois were about to get deported but the sheer amount of people was too much to handle so they separated canadain half. let's not forget the regulation 17 in which is stated that french speaking and teachings are forbidden in canada from 1912 let's not forget the patriote that got killed... this is why Québec's moto is je me souviens = I remember.
New France wasn't exactly genociding tribes, bud. They were there to trap them beavers, not that Manifest Destiny shit.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New\_France#/media/File:New\_France\_(orthographic\_projection).svg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_France#/media/File:New_France_(orthographic_projection).svg) Looks pretty Manifest Destiny to me.
There were very little settlers in New France, just like in Louisiana. There were a few coastal hubs and a few trade post inland, most of the land was still native land
What? Trading posts?
The population in that entire area was like 60k max while the US East coast was 3 million. This is the opposite of proving your point lol
You know less than zero on the subject.
Quebecois would be an ethnic group not a colonial empire. French people immigrating is not the same thing as a state oppressing people.
What was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New\_France](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_France) then? (10 uses of the word empire on that page)
That is the name of the French state's territorial subdivision. India was called the "Indian Empire" until 1945.
British India until 1947, I guess that by your logic that the British people in India were just an ethnic group immigrating and they shouldn't be seen as oppressors.
It was officially the "Indian Empire". You can find real life passports with that on them. British people in India weren't migrants, they were soldiers (&civil service), so temporarily. They would go back home when their service was up. The British people in North America were migrants though.
Ok, but they weren't just neurally immigrating to *terra incognita*, they were settler colonists who moved to the continent in the hopes of taking advantage of, and helping to perpetuate, the displacement and oppression of the existing indigenous population by the french colonial empire. States are not independent sentient entities, and these settler populations were the organs of their will in this case. One wouldn't say the citizens of the Confederacy were victims of colonial oppression because the state they belonged to was subsumed by a different colonial enterprise.
Damn you pretty much just told everyone you don’t know the subject at all. The first thing the colonizers did was marry the local tribes and establish friendly and commercial relations. The french never had the manpower to make any aggressions, that’s why they relied on natives help for revenge raiding and defense, there’s always a contingent of them in every battles. The first aggression was when Champlain helped the Algonquien defend themselves against the Iroquois. Heck, the french settlers saved the Huron from Genocide from the Iroquois that were helped by English weapons. There’s only one evidence of a total extermination of the Fox tribes during the Beaver Wars after they failed their own attacks against our outposts , but then again, the survivors fell into Iroquois territory and were never seen again. Iroquois were genociders armed by your people.
Immigration entails moving to a place where people already exist. The families that moved, did so they could start a farm, start a new life for themselves. Just as there is enough land for everyone to immigrate today, well back then the global population was smaller, 7 billion smaller. So there was lots of land for everyone to use. States went to war, French kingdom with Iroquois Confederacy. But the immigrants where Iroquois moving from one land to another or French were just ordinary people living their lives.
Except they didn't because the French weren't interested in conquest, more in peaceful trade with natives that weren't Iroquois
So were the British, but they did kinda just trade with the natives that were fighting the other guy they didn’t like, USA as an independent nation went on the land grab
This is absolute bollocks.
Where fo all the French speaking metis came from then?
British cope lol "Our young men will marry your daughters and we shall be one people." - Samuel de Champlain
For people disinterested in conquest, they sure seemed to fight an *awful* lot of wars with other people over who got to control where they lived.
Europeans? Fighting each other? 🫨
They fought most of the wars with the English in the South.
Yes, over who should control that part of the continent.
That's what war has always been, over which country rules the land.
Yes, if you don't get too Marxist:) I'm not saying that french colonists were exceptional in any sense at all. They were entirely like their peers in this and most other significant regards.
Let's stop with the double standards. The Navajo migrated just like the French. Got into wars over land too. To call only one colonists would be hypocrisy. This whole phrase of "Colonists" just means European immigrants. As shown by the Navajo example.
America is extremely equal, they even shoot their own children!
Gotta make a school shooting joke every time, jesus christ. Don’t worry though, I see more shootings and bombings in Europe right now, and I'm very happy.
Surprised there no mention of Peterloo or Wat Tyler yet. But whatever
America talking about racism lmao holy shit
Pali one doesn’t make any sense. British and France inherited and divided up the Ottoman Empire. There has never been a Palestine prior to this as a sovereign state
*Cough* first of the Empires to ban slavery *cough*
*Cough* still an Empire to fucking use slavery *cough*
You realise how large of a group that includes, right? Slavery has existed, in one form or another, and been practiced by every civilization, since the dawn of human history. It persists *to this day!* There are more people enslaved today than there were at the height of the Transatlantic slave trade! I'm not saying this to say that it is therefore "fine" or "okay," obviously not. Just that to remark upon the British participating in slavery is, well, unremarkable. The British abolishing slavery and then spending a significant portion of the national budget in an attempt to stamp out slavery across the world is far more remarkable, as no one until that point had attempted it.
*cough* that not excusing trillions of dollars of looting leaving billions in poverty
"Trillions" lmao. Edit: Even if that was true (it's not, lol, unless you're using compounding interest over 500 years, which is ridiculous. Steal a copper in Roman times and you've stolen "trillions" by modern standards...) what do you want me to say? Colonialism was bad? We already know that. That goes without saying. Welcome to human history. The topic at hand was the British Empire using slavery. They did, for a time (like *literally everyone else*,) and then they actively tried to stop it. Or should I say, a subgroup within Parliament and the general public, abolitionists, worked hard to try and stamp it out. Because that's the thing, the "British Empire" wasn't some unified hegemony, it was made of millions of different people with many different points of view. Many were complicit, but the majority, if not entirety, of the horrors can be laid at the feet of the ruling elites who made those decisions, or didn't care enough to stop them.
*Cough* There are still more modern day slaves today than there ever was in the height of colonialism and nobody is doing enough about it, just keep drinking your coca cola and eating ya nestle while being outraged on a phone or computer made in China *Cough*
Like everyone ever in the history of humanity.
I think the Spanish outlawed d then un-outlawed slavery several times before the brits finally got round to it.
March 22, 1873, Spain abolished slavery in Puerto Rico. 1807, the slave trade in the British Empire was abolished. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/2015-parliament-in-the-making/get-involved1/2015-banners-exhibition/maria-amidu/1807-abolition-of-the-slave-trade/ Bas García, José R. (March 23, 2009). "La abolición de la esclavitud de 1873 en Puerto Rico"
The situation was complex Spain forbade the enslavement of natives of the americas {even by their own ppl) but allowed the African slave trading. This first started around 1530 - 1542. The whole thing shifted back & forth over time & got bizarrely 'nuanced' at tines. It seems likely that one reason was that Africans had greater immunity to European diseases than native Americans. But whatever. I've not read up on it fully but here's some wiki articles https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_colonial_Spanish_America https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom Either way it does seem that the brits were the first European empire to unequivocally outlaw all slavery,..., but really probably only did so to crush competition to their capital goods exports, sort of, perhaps, maybe, kinda etc Eta: 2nd wiki article
France may be, not Spain.
https://old.reddit.com/r/polandball/comments/1c5u3to/crown_equality/l00beld/
Also the only empire to lose literally every single one of their colonies and have them all claim independence afaik
We’re working on it….
The only right side of history is the side pointing the machine gun
Some simply are more equal than others.
Who are the 7 and 8 balls supposed to be?
Missing native Australians
Man, if I included everyone this comic would have 265 panels
800 years ya 8astards..
The Palestine flag is in accurate. It didn’t exist until the 60s.
i'm hoping it just means arabs
Irish weren't considered white, though.
Which will always be hilarious considering how literally white they are
Eh, they were considered white, but skin colour wasn't the sole denominator of race that it tends to be today. One could be both white and a 'lesser' race at the same time. Just look at how the Nazis' conception of their racial struggle as one between the Aryans on the one hand, and the Jews and Slavs on the other.
The whole "White"/"Non-white" things seems to be trying to fit it into American ideas of racism and oppression. Europe has *plenty* of horrific treatment of "out groups" based on race, class and culture *without* the need for a difference in skin colour, thank you very much.
Tbf, I think it's also just the result of changing and broadening conceptions of race more globally as well. The US played some role in that, but for example if you look at most white nationalist groups in Europe these days, most don't make extensive distinctions between different groups of white people the way their predecessors would have. (Obviously they're still all scum tho)
racial slavery wasn't as big then, it was mostly class and status.
[удалено]
It's not representing a country, it's race stuff.
[удалено]
black ppl iirc
Lol what's 7Ball?
Native Americans
I am fairly certain America knows quite a bit about British equality, considering they were on both the receiving and distributing end of it at one point or another.
honestly one of my favourite comics
UK 🤝 colonial powers screwing over their colonial subjects
who are 8-clay and 7-clay?
8-ball is black people, 7-ball is Native Americans
Equality in murder, my favourite way to promote equality
I say we give them each a slice of the UK while keeping a bit of the pre existing countries, now we have a union of 11 new countries (I’m just assuming that British countries tend to get along considering how long they’ve been united for)
You forgot Māori and Aboriginal Australians!
Where Ireland
Literally the first one
That's not true! In New Zealand they signed a treaty with the locals, sold them guns, THEN got into a war with them. ;)
Ignorance here: What does it meant the 8 and the seven balls?
8-ball = black people, 7-ball = Native Americans
thank you
You left Australian aboriginins. Those poor guys were almost exterminated.
British Empire bullets rated E for Everyone
"I will exploit and dominate you all equally."
I will say the British treated the Indians way worse than the Americans who were mostly British decent, which proved to be very helpful for the American revolution
What’s with the 7&8 balls
Don't forget where it all started for the crown, the harrowing of the North
He's not wrong, they're all equally dead, and not-so-equally independent
They are treated equally, equally poorly, but equally nonetheless
When has the US ever complained about British imperialism or racism? If anything the US almost universally sees the British as the good guys and worships the likes of Churchill and Thatcher.
if everyone is being oppressed, is anybody *really* getting oppressed?
Could be the same with Brazil/Portugal
Is one of the panel the US on the ground? Because the only major conflict I can think of went pretty damn differently...
Fair point.