Well, if you read them you'll find I'm doing both. I don't really expect you to take the time to do that, not if your recent history on this site is any indication of your behaviour. Detailed analysis is easy for you have not provided much historical detail and you completely lack any form of referencing and citation. As to the impeachment charge you keep going on about, I will get there in time, just be patient, the world doesn't revolve around you.
No, I never denied that (except for China, for that is clearly incorrect). You seem to have a problem reading and comprehending the simplest of English.
Please see my comments and refutations. Furthermore, your claim that your material "is all truth" lacks any academic validity owing to the highly biased content.
Please calm yourself. No-one is denying New Imperialism of the 19th century existed. That belief that posters are denying such a thing is all in your mind. However, in the case of China, you are clearly misinformed. You seem to lack the comprehension required to discern between facts and emotional editorial content. As to your last point, I care not to extrapolate on your thoughts.
Now, now, calm yourself young man, there is no need for such poor behaviour.
The rant above is not worthy of a mark as it is nothing more than a diatribe containing mere invective. Therefore, as a piece of historiography, it is clearly a poor effort.
Now, now, behave yourself. As I asked you previously, please provide proof of of your contention and cite examples, otherwise you appear to be 'making this stuff up' to put it colloquially.
Persist with such false accusations and I'll report you.
I'm just marking your posts as I would mark any first year student's work. It saddens me to say that you're not quite up to that standard yet and you need to relinquish your prejudices before you can consider yourself a student of history. You have a long way to go, but if you apply yourself, there is no reason you can't do it.
It appears that this point was inserted merely to demonstrate your prejudice. Your questions are beyond quantification and illogical when would could ask the same regarding the internecine strife in the region prior to British rule in India (I assume you're writing about India at this point, considering your mention of China is incorrect). You seem to focus on the negatives without considering the positives which would give your work balance, however, this historiographical flaw pervades all your work.
You appear to be introducing a moral question where none exists. The New Imperialism cannot be erased from history and no-one is attempting to do so. Your second point evinces poor logic, 'for if one sins, one is always a sinner?'. I think the point of 'credibility' lies with your contention and not historical events. Furthermore, you are confusing the actions of Britain with the actions of the UN. What are you trying to demonstrate here? Some form of simplistic dualism? Id est East=good; West=bad? Surely, you don't expect anyone to buy into such a puerile notion?
Your first point is always the ideal and a given, really. But the real world cannot always conform to ideals. Your second point is incorrect as resolution 181 was without precedent.
This post was almost incoherent, and as a result, difficult to follow in part. Please supply references to support some of your 'wilder' contentions and the reader may take your points seriously, otherwise your views lack credibility. You need to work on developing a logical argument.
Clearly you did not research this point. Did you open a history book at all prior to posting this? Queen Elizabeth I formed the East India Company to re-open the Silk Road closed by the Ottoman Turks in 1453. In 1600, the company was granted a monopoly on trade by the monarch. Do not overlook the Portuguese & Dutch interests in this area. Furthermore, there was no 'Indian Emperor' as such as the sub-continent was a collection of principalities and city-states all vying for hegemony over one another. As for the establishment of British rule as being illegal, I think you are somewhat confused and introduce this anachronism to a period where such international legalities didn't exist. But, I suppose you expect this to support your contention
Incorrect. Your implication is that China was wholly a British Protectorate ("...over a billion people..."). As demonstrated below, Britain only secured a few trade entrepots.
Early in the 19th century, serious internal weaknesses developed in the Manchu empire that left China vulnerable to Western, Japanese, and Russian imperialism. In 1839, China found itself fighting the First Opium War with Britain. China was defeated, and in 1842, agreed to the provisions of the Treaty of Nanjing. Hong Kong was ceded to Britain, and certain ports, including Shanghai and Guangzhou, were opened to British trade and residence. In 1856, the Second Opium War broke out. The Chinese were again defeated, and now forced to the terms of the 1858 Treaty of Tientsin. The treaty opened new ports to trade and allowed foreigners to travel in the interior.
Poorly researched; no source material cited and false, emotive claims render this post invalid. Watch your spelling and do your research.
I regretfully offer you a 2 out of 10 on this effort, and that's being generous.
Of course there is time for humans to learn from mistakes. Humanity itself, much like the individual, is a constant work in progress. "The older generation shamefully..." has always been said, even in the time of Socrates this claim rang out across the Agora. It is hardly a realistic appraisal of history though. The hatred you refer to is often borne of religious prejudice and the associated cycle of violence and until humanity can shed this primitive need for gods and the like, you will see it continue.
While a pretty conclusion to its preceding diatribe, this is still poor historiography, therefore I suggest you see my earlier comments regarding your mark.
The above paragraph is a classic example of poor historiography. Furthermore, it contains examples of specious logic (an illegal legal premise for instance) that renders the paragraph incoherent. Moreover, as a student of history, you should investigate the concept of 'New Imperialism' in the 19th century. Moreover, this line of thought and specious reasoning remains outside the current subject, therefore it is not relevant to the current debate.
I advise you to calm down and address the topic at hand. It would be advantageous to your argument if you could provide examples of your contention. The repeated lack of source material and citations renders your work specious.
A highly emotional response lacking in historical credibility. The East India Company was inaugurated under Queen Elizabeth I to re-establish trade routes with India and Cathay (China). These trade routes had been closed to the west by the Muslim invasions of Eastern Europe and the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turk (1453). The very same expansion that led to the Islamic occupation of the Levant (remembering the topic at hand, Max). In addition, the British influence in Afghanistan (it was never an 'occupation') was purely to prevent Russian expansion in the region. See below:
Hmmm. This is quite an assertion on your part, but knowing the standard of your previous work, this paragraph is hardly out of character. You appear to be accusing others of 'hate-based' arguments when, you yourself, demonstrate an enthusiastic use of a similar technique. You say that "history provides references for us to derive inferences", and that being the case, I would remind you of your own advice and provide some references and citations of your source material.
This post was highly emotional and completely lacking in source material, references and academic citation. Moreover, I would expect a higher standard of historiography from a year 7 student. Overuse of capitalisation throughout the post does not reinforce your poorly made point. Therefore, I regret to inform you that I can award you no more than 3 out of 10.
Incorrect, Resolution 181 was a UN decision. You will need to provide a source to give this claim any credence. Furthermore, if you're confusing the Mandate of the League of Nations with the UN resolution, it would have been accepted by the British Government and not the monarchy, as the Monarchy has no legislative power other than ratification of Parliamentary decisions.
Yes, you have that right. Historical background (i.e. the fall of the Ottoman Empire) and source quotations would improve your historiography at this point.
Source? An arbitrary statement lacking source material, therefore invalid. Please use sources when stating historical opinion.
Again, quite an arbitrary statement and again, lacking any source material to give this any credibility. Please watch your spelling and try to improve your citations.
Not ironic at all, but expected as the UN decision conflicts with the opposing nation's interests, however, the point is moot as it was passed.
Inaccurate, you omit Malaysia and Indonesia etc. The common denominator is not the locality of the opposing nations, but the religious beliefs of the said nations. Please improve your research techniques.
Incorrect, please see the following link for an in depth study of the reasons behind the war. Again, you use an arbitrary statement without citation of source material.
Your overall contention is incorrect. It is true that the partition of India and the the two Pakistans was enacted, however, you fail to cite the cause for this (i.e. in order to prevent religious based civil war). In the case of China and Hong Kong it was not partition, but Britain leased the territory from the Chinese. Furthermore, any British involvement in the China/Tibet/Taiwan scenario is pure fantasy. Please improve you research and provide citations.
Poorly researched; a lack of verifiable source material; a contention based on prejudice as opposed to any historical facts and a poorly developed argument contribute to your low mark.
I'm sorry, but the best I can give you is 4/10 and that is being generous.
You can say that comfortable in the knowledge that the thread where you behaved like a pig has been deleted. You are a lying POS Max and the way you treat BB is appalling. Don't worry, I cut and pasted your comments that have now been deleted and I'm saving them up for a rainy day, so to speak.
You're a terrible host, Max and your manners are appalling. You shouldn't ignore Mr. Robel, after all, he just arrived on this thread and would love to hear your explanation. Have some courtesy man.
Perhaps, you should jolly well get a petition together and present it to Parliament House or Buckingham Palace. You may find someone who cares. Somehow, I doubt it though.
Unfortunately, the anti-western sentiment on this site is becoming very old, very quickly. It's amazing how we could not get away with it if we applied the same techniques and rhetoric in reverse.
Everyone forgets the practice of throwing the wife on the husband's funeral pyre and watching her burn alive. British ule put an end to that barbaric practice. Not to mention, stopping the Thugee Raj cult roaming the countryside killing people for sacrifices. They put a stop to the internecine strife and wars among the princedoms in the region and formed the modern state of India, leaving the Westminster system which has served them well since 1948. The partition prevented what could have one of the worst civil wars and cases of genocide the world has ever seen.
Class5 Forum Posts (1,010)
I noticed that too. 'keep the nonsense to a minimum'~what a hypocrite! 
RE: Should Israel to allow Palestine be an independent state?
Now, calm yourself. There is no need to get so wound up. Actually, that cannot really be considered 'irony' as such, but 'obstinate'.