Starmer's Approval Rating Plummets,
News1 min ago
L'Angleterre est une nation de boutiquiers.
26 Answers
Napoleon once called us a"A nation of Shopkeepers".
What happened?
http://www.dailymail....ins-high-streets.html
Is it really the recession, or is it the fact that the "High Street" as we knew it is fast becoming a thing of the past?
We no longer walk up and down the high street in the wind and rain, but we now shop in the warm, comfortable, and pleasantly illuminated shopping malls, or we drive out to the out of town outlets where we can park free.
What happened?
http://www.dailymail....ins-high-streets.html
Is it really the recession, or is it the fact that the "High Street" as we knew it is fast becoming a thing of the past?
We no longer walk up and down the high street in the wind and rain, but we now shop in the warm, comfortable, and pleasantly illuminated shopping malls, or we drive out to the out of town outlets where we can park free.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"the British would have lost at Waterloo without German and other European help"
This is a simplification depending on which Europeans you're referring to. If you're talking about Blucher, Wellington knew the Prussians were on the way and knew that he needed to hold Bonaparte - which he did very well. Basing your strategy on co-operation with your allies isn't the same thing as being bailed out by them - we can't tell if Wellington would have won had there been no Prussians and (if he'd have chosen to fight) he'd have had to use another strategy.
If you're talking about the Dutch, however, that's a different story...
The India thing is complicated. It's true we were accepted there for trade and the EIC only really started grabbing territory as a reactionary thing, but it pretty quickly gained momentum and by the early C19 'pre-emptive strikes' became practically the norm (despite repeated warnings from London...) The EIC were no angels. They were quite happy to use thuggery and gangsterism to get their way - as shown by the wide suspicion and disregard they seem to have been held in by the British public at the time.
I'm not quite sure, however, why AOG feels the obsessive need to look at British history in quite so contrived a way...
This is a simplification depending on which Europeans you're referring to. If you're talking about Blucher, Wellington knew the Prussians were on the way and knew that he needed to hold Bonaparte - which he did very well. Basing your strategy on co-operation with your allies isn't the same thing as being bailed out by them - we can't tell if Wellington would have won had there been no Prussians and (if he'd have chosen to fight) he'd have had to use another strategy.
If you're talking about the Dutch, however, that's a different story...
The India thing is complicated. It's true we were accepted there for trade and the EIC only really started grabbing territory as a reactionary thing, but it pretty quickly gained momentum and by the early C19 'pre-emptive strikes' became practically the norm (despite repeated warnings from London...) The EIC were no angels. They were quite happy to use thuggery and gangsterism to get their way - as shown by the wide suspicion and disregard they seem to have been held in by the British public at the time.
I'm not quite sure, however, why AOG feels the obsessive need to look at British history in quite so contrived a way...
Steve.5
The British cut the hands of the silk weavers did they?
The fact was that it was the Sepoys who cut of the thumbs of the weavers, these Sepoys may have been working for the East India Company, but they were Indian, not British.
/// Sepoys of the East India Company were sent to destroy the factories owned by Indian rivals to the East India Company. Independent weavers who refused to work for the pitiful wages that the East India Company offered had their thumbs cut off. ///
But that was almost 200 years ago, it would seem from this that the Indian Silk Weaver bosses are just as bad today.
http://www.nearintern...etail.asp?alertid=239
The British cut the hands of the silk weavers did they?
The fact was that it was the Sepoys who cut of the thumbs of the weavers, these Sepoys may have been working for the East India Company, but they were Indian, not British.
/// Sepoys of the East India Company were sent to destroy the factories owned by Indian rivals to the East India Company. Independent weavers who refused to work for the pitiful wages that the East India Company offered had their thumbs cut off. ///
But that was almost 200 years ago, it would seem from this that the Indian Silk Weaver bosses are just as bad today.
http://www.nearintern...etail.asp?alertid=239
Kromovaracun
You ask, why I feel the obsessive need to look at British history in quite so contrived a way, WHY????????
It seems that I can't enter a simple question about the closure of shops without others highjacking my question, by slagging off our Navy & Army, this in turn started a debate on Waterloo, Trafalgar, and India etc.
Nothing obsessive about this, I have the right to defend, if others choose to attack.
You ask, why I feel the obsessive need to look at British history in quite so contrived a way, WHY????????
It seems that I can't enter a simple question about the closure of shops without others highjacking my question, by slagging off our Navy & Army, this in turn started a debate on Waterloo, Trafalgar, and India etc.
Nothing obsessive about this, I have the right to defend, if others choose to attack.
"by slagging off our Navy & Army, this in turn started a debate on Waterloo, Trafalgar, and India etc"
But whoever it was didn't *** off the navy & army. They were trying to contextualise Napoleon's statement (which you quoted) by highlighting what they thought the implication of it was. But what struck me about your response was your view of British history, which kind of comes across as the result of trying very hard to view it in a certain light. That same view seems on some level to have informed your question, which as always basically boils down to 'why aren't things as good as they were in the old days'?
But whoever it was didn't *** off the navy & army. They were trying to contextualise Napoleon's statement (which you quoted) by highlighting what they thought the implication of it was. But what struck me about your response was your view of British history, which kind of comes across as the result of trying very hard to view it in a certain light. That same view seems on some level to have informed your question, which as always basically boils down to 'why aren't things as good as they were in the old days'?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.