Tema: Necesito ayuda. (Leyenda negra)

Más leyes abusivas contra los indios del Canadá:

INDIAN ACT SECTION 46
REMOVAL OF INDIANS
To assure that Whites could improve the "amenities" of their communities by having Indians removed from close proximity, the government included this section in the Indian Act:
Removal of Indians
46. (1) In the case of an Indian reserve which adjoins or is situated wholly or partly within an incorporated town or city having a population of not less than eight thousand ... the Governor in Council may, upon the recommendation of the Superintendent General, refer to the judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada for inquiry and report the question as to whether it is expedient, having regard to the interest of the public and of the Indians of the band for whose use the reserve is held, that the Indians should be removed from the reserve or any part of it....
If the judge finds that it is expedient that the band of Indians should be removed from the reserve or any part of it, he shall proceed, before making his report, to ascertain the amounts of compensation, if any, which should be paid respectively to individual Indians of the band for the special loss or damages which they will sustain in respect of the buildings or improvements to which they are entitled upon the lands of the reserve for which they are located.....
The judge shall transmit his findings, with the evidence and a report of the proceedings, to the Governor in Council, who shall lay a full report of the proceedings ... before Parliament ... and upon such findings being approved by resolution of Parliament the Governor in Council may thereupon give effect to the said findings and cause the reserve, or any part thereof from which it is found expedient to remove the Indians, to be sold or leased by public auction after three months advertisement in the public press, upon the best terms which in the opinion of the Governor in Council, may be obtained therefor.
The proceeds of the sale or lease, after deducting the usual percentage for management fund, shall be applied in compensating individual Indians for their buildings or improvements as found by the judge, in purchasing a new reserve for the Indians removed, in transferring the said Indians with their effects thereto, in erecting buildings upon the new reserve, and in providing the Indians with such other assistance as the Superintendent General may consider advisable....
For the purpose of selecting [a] new reserve to be acquired for the Indians ... the Superintendent General shall have all the powers conferred upon the Minister by the Expropriation Act.39
Shortly after the turn of the century this provision was used in Nova Scotia. The victims were the Mi'kmaq residing near Kings Road in Sydney (about where the Holiday Inn is now located). Whites, residing close to the area, went to court and used the provision to force the Band members to move to Membertou Reserve.
No attempt has ever been made by the federal Crown to right this historic wrong. However, on March 21, 1999, at a dinner in Membertou the Mayor of the Cape Breton Regional Municipality, David Muise, officially apologized on behalf of the municipality to the descendants of the Mi'kmaq removed from their Kings Road Reserve starting in 1915. He told the gathering: "There's nothing we can do to undo the move.... What I'm here to do is start the healing process for wrongs of the past." Right on, Mr. Mayor!
Section 46, in addition to being contrary to the laws of a civilized Nation, was contrary to human decency! Until it was repealed in 1951, this obnoxious section gave the bureaucrats an enormous club to wield in their efforts to force the First Nations peoples to do their bidding. The threat of removal caused the Mi'kmaq to think twice before opposing the Department. Adding to the obnoxiousness of the legislation was the fact that the Department could force the People to pay for their own expulsion, as was done in the case of the Sydney Mi'kmaq.

INDIAN ACT SECTION 46: REMOVAL OF INDIANS

Y todavía en tiempos muy recientes trataban a los indios como a putas. Y tu profesora canadiense tiene el descaro de acusarnos a los españoles.


MEDICAL EXPERIMENTATION:
USING FIRST NATIONS STUDENTS AS TEST SUBJECTS
Medical experimentation also took place at Indian Residential and Indian Day schools. This example, reported in the May 8, 2000, issue of Maclean's magazine makes one wonder whether this is modern Canada or a throwback to the Dark Ages:
Natives denied dental care Federal government doctors withheld specialized dental care, such as professional cleaning and treatment of decay, for aboriginal children living in eight residential schools in the 1940s and 1950s to see what the effect would be on their health. The director of the study, Dr. L.B. Pett, said last week that students' teeth and gums were in terrible condition to begin with, and that delaying treatment did not create more decay, but helped keep the study's results accurate.
Such views about experiments, using people deemed "inferior" as guinea pigs, were expressed by another majority group, the Nazis. As might be expected from a systemically racist society, to my knowledge, not one word of condemnation has been uttered about this revelation from any level of government, or human rights commission in Canada.

CANADIAN MEDICAL EXPERIMENTATION: USING FIRST NATIONS STUDENTS AS TEST SUBJECTS

Y hasta 1960 no dejaron votar a los indios. No tenían voz ni voto, ni cabildos ni podían escribir una carta al rey. Hay que enseñarles unas cuantas cosas a estos canadienses.

CANADA'S FIRST NATIONS PEOPLES
GIVEN VOTING RIGHTS: MARCH 31, 1960

In 1960, under Prime Minister John Diefenbaker's enlightened thinking, the government made a decision that would prove to be most beneficial in promoting the eventual recognition of the civil and human rights of First Nations citizens. It decided to permit all Registered Indians to vote in federal elections. Registered Indians living on-Reserve had previously been prevented from doing so by this section of the Canada Elections Act:
14. (2) The following persons are disqualified from voting in an election and incapable of being registered as electors and shall not vote nor be so registered, that is to say, ...
(e) every Indian, as defined in the Indian Act, ordinarily resident on a reserve, unless
(i) he was a member of His Majesty's Forces during World War I or World War II, or was a member of the Canadian Forces who served on active service subsequent to the 9th day of September, 1950, or
(ii) he executed a waiver, in a form prescribed by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, of exemptions under the Indian Act from taxation on and in respect of personal property, and subsequent to the execution of such waiver a writ has issued ordering an election in any electoral district.
An "Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act," repealing the discriminatory parts of Section 14, was given royal assent on March 31, 1960.
By acquiring the right to vote ninety-three unjustifiable years after Confederation, the First Nations peoples of Canada had acquired a useful tool in their future struggles for freedom and justice. Politicians now had to address their problems or suffer at the polls. After this, things began to slowly change for the better for First Nations peoples.
Why the change wasn't more rapid is explained by the following example of the racist attitudes that still prevailed among the bureaucrats: When I returned from the States in 1960 with the intention of going back to school, I went to see the Indian Agent with a request for financial assistance to do so. His response was: "Why don't you go get a pick and shovel and go do what you're best qualified for? " With the angry intervention of my Member of Parliament, Mr. Cyril Kennedy, who was a war veteran and a fine gentleman, the Agent changed his attitude and I started business college in September of that year.
Another thing that changed after the vote was granted was that departmental bureaucrats became more adept at concealing their misdeeds and failings from Members of Parliament, who were now answerable to the people making complaints about bureaucratic job performance. The bureaucrats came up with the ideal solution, amazingly never challenged by any politician. To this day they assign themselves to investigate their own misdeeds and failings and, of course, almost always exonerate themselves. The worst result is that First Nations citizens are left with no effective legal recourse for their complaints about the actions of Indian Affairs bureaucrats and Band Councils. As this situation demonstrates, full protection of our People's civil rights is still hard to come by.
NOTE: Probably related to white supremacist thinking that was implanted in them through the social development of the mother country, England, all the white overseas countries founded by it were extremely barbaric in their treatment of the indigenous inhabitants they displaced. In one form or other, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States have subjected them to genocidal treatment.
Austrailia took even longer than Canada to grant it's indigenous people the right to vote in the country's elections: November 24, 1973!

CANADA'S FIRST NATION CITIZENS GRANTED VOTING RIGHTS: MARCH 31, 1960

Y como buena canadiense, seguro que tu profesora conoce bien el francés, así que también le puedes dar este artículo:

http://hispanismo.org/francais/9074-...kingechee.html

Gracias por vuestra ayuda.. Sólo con el primer mensaje, Hyeronimus, tengo para darle caña un buen rato.

Lo de los indios (que no no hindues), se lo dije hace mucho, cuando, precisamente, nos estaba vilipendiando. Tenía una compañera de Colombia con rasgos nativos muy marcados, cuando esta profesora empezó su retalía de mentiras contra nosotros y nuestra crueldad (no eran sino los usos de aquella época)me referí a esta compañera, y acto seguido la pregunté que dónde estaban los indios canadienses y me dijo que en las reservas, le contesté: aun no he visto ninguno y que me parecen una mentira.
Trás un parrafada(suya) le dije que si en realidad no estarían en zoos. Ya que la gente paga por verlos y no pueden salir de sus reservas. No dijo nada en contra nuestro en un tiempo.

Ella es de antepasados hindues, con algo de sangre judia y del el Salvador.

Iniciado por mazadelizana

Ella es de antepasados hindues, con algo de sangre judia y del el Salvador.

Ahora que mencionas eso, también vale recordar que los judíos expulsados de España se aliaron a los ingleses y a todos los enemigos de España para destruir los cimientos del Imperio. Detrás de todo el proceso de descomposición del Imperio Español estuvo la masonería, que de hecho fomentó el crecimiento movimientos independentistas en territorio americano.

Espero que te sirvan de algo las oportaciones de tan cultivados hermanos, pero me temo que aun teniendo una maquina del tiempo que os teletransporte a ti y a tu profesora a los iglos XV, XVI, XVII e incluso el XVIII, no la haras entrar en razón.
para eso deveria vaciar sus pensamientos de años de mentiras y prejuicios, y siend como supongo inteligente, su mente negara los hechos.

Suscribo lo dicho por Tercio, por mucho que se diga al final sale siempre el prejuicio anti español a la superficie, son varios siglos machacando sobre lo mismo para que se cambie la cosa así como así.

Lo que tiene bemoles es que sea una anglosajona, lo digo porque presumo que sigues en Ottawa y supongo que tu profesora lo será, te hable de "genocidios contra los indígenas americanos". Pues anda que hay muchos indígenas en Canadá y USA, del Atlántico hasta el Pacifico hicieron una buena "impia" sus antepasados, se cargaron varios millones, no sé si los 6 millones que se dicen murieron en el llamado Holocausto judío, pero por ahí le anda la cosa, sólo mal viven algunos pocos, los que se salvaron del exterminio, en las llamadas reservas. Ah, y me apuesto un céntimo de euro que tu profe es de izquierdas.

Te diría estimado Mazzadelizana, que el debate habría que centrarlo en dos aspectos:

a.) Cronológico.
b.) Bárbaros y sanguinarios respecto de qué o mejor, respecto de quiénes.

Respeto del primer punto, pues habría que comentar que los hechos a los que se refiere respecto de la "supuesta barbarie hispánica" se centran fundamentalmente en el Siglo XVI (recién salidos de la Edad Media), mientras que las "conquistas británicas" se centran fundamentalmente el siglo XIX y hasta principios de Siglo XX en plena era industrial. Y esto tiene muchísima trascdendencia y es un agravante insoslayable.

No creo que sea comparable un esecenario posmedieval con uno de plena era industrial, en lo que a avance del derecho internacional se refiere. Por cierto, que fue España (Padre Francisco de Vitoria), quien pone los cimientos del Derecho Internacional.

Respecto del segundo punto, a sanguinarios NADIE y repito NADIE ha "ganado" a los anglosajones.

Fíjate en qué clase personajillos encumbrados con el título de SIR fundaron los cimientos del Imperio Británico:

Cecil Rhodes: A bad man in Africa

</EM>
The evil that men do lives after them - and rarely more miserably than in the case of Cecil Rhodes, who died 100 years ago this month
By Matthew Sweet

Saturday, 16 March 2002


North of the Zambezi, they have long known about the suppression of free speech, about the bloody redistribution of land along racial lines, about politicians happy to employ armed – and sometimes uniformed – mobs to kill their opponents. They are practices imported to this region, along with the railways, by the British.
Unlike the African press, the Western media rarely invoke the name of Cecil John Rhodes: nearly a century after his death – on 26 March 1902 – his name is more associated with Oxford Scholarships than with murder. It's easier to focus on the region's more recent, less Anglo white supremacists: Ian Smith, for instance, who – despite his Scottish background – seems cut from the same stuff as those Afrikaner politicians who nurtured and maintained apartheid farther south.
But it was Rhodes who originated the racist "land grabs" to which Zimbabwe's current miseries can ultimately be traced. It was Rhodes, too, who in 1887 told the House of Assembly in Cape Town that "the native is to be treated as a child and denied the franchise. We must adopt a system of despotism in our relations with the barbarians of South Africa". In less oratorical moments, he put it even more bluntly: "I prefer land to niggers."
For much of the century since his death, Rhodes has been revered as a national hero. Today, however, he is closer to a national embarrassment, about whom the less said the better. Yet there are plenty of memorials to him to be found. In Bishop's Stortford, his Hertfordshire birthplace, St Michael's Church displays a plaque. The town has a Rhodes arts centre, a Rhodes junior theatre group, and a small Rhodes Museum – currently closed – which houses a collection of African art objects. In Oxford, his statue adorns Oriel College, while Rhodes House, in which the Rhodes Trust is based, is packed with memorabilia. Even Kensington Gardens boasts a statue – of a naked man on horseback – based on the central feature of his memorial in Cape Town.
But his presence is more strongly felt – and resented – in the territories that once bore his name. Delegates at the Pan Africanist Congress in January argued that "the problems which were being blamed on [President Robert] Mugabe were created by British colonialism, whose agent Cecil Rhodes used armed force to acquire land for settlers". He is the reason why, during the campaign for the presidential election in Zimbabwe, Mugabe's Zanu-PF described its enemies – white or black – as "colonialists"; why, when Zimbabwe gained full independence in 1980, Rhodes's name was wiped from the world's maps.
The prosecution case is strong. Rhodes connived his way to wealth in a lawless frontier culture, then used that fortune to fund a private invasion of East Africa. He bought newspapers in order to shape and control public opinion. He brokered secret deals, issued bribes and used gangs of mercenaries to butcher his opponents, seizing close to a million square miles of territory from its inhabitants. Although he did this in the name of the British Empire, he was regarded with some suspicion in his home country, and when it suited him to work against Britain's imperial interests – by slipping £10,000 to Parnell's Irish nationalists, for example – he did so without scruple.
Rhodes was born in the summer of 1853, the fifth son of a parson who prided himself on never having preached a sermon longer than 10 minutes. A sickly, asthmatic teenager, he was sent to the improving climate of his brother's cotton plantation in Natal. The pair soon became involved in the rush to exploit South Africa's diamond and gold deposits – and unlike many prospectors and speculators who wandered, dazed and luckless, around the continent, their claim proved fruitful.
When Rhodes began his studies at Oriel College, he returned to South Africa each vacation to attend to his mining interests – which, by his mid-thirties, had made him, in today's terms, a billionaire. By 1891, he had amalgamated the De Beers mines under his control, giving him dominion over 90 per cent of the world's diamond output. He had also secured two other important positions; Prime Minister of the British Cape Colony, and president of the British South Africa Company, an organisation that was formed – in the manner of the old East India companies – to pursue expansionist adventures for which sponsoring governments did not have the stomach or the cash. The result of his endeavours produced new British annexations: Nyasaland (now Malawi), Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia) and Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe).
Rhodes imprinted his personality on the region with monarchical energy: dams, railway engines, towns and anti-dandruff tonics were all named after him. But his expansionist zeal was not always matched at home in Britain. "Our burden is too great," Gladstone once grumbled. "We have too much, Mr Rhodes, to do. Apart from increasing our obligations in every part of the world, what advantage do you see to the English race in the acquisition of new territory?" Rhodes replied: "Great Britain is a very small island. Great Britain's position depends on her trade, and if we do not open up the dependencies of the world which are at present devoted to barbarism, we shall shut out the world's trade. It must be brought home to you that your trade is the world, and your life is the world, not England. That is why you must deal with these questions of expansion and retention of the world."
At around the same time, Henry John Heinz was outlining a comparable manifesto: "Our field," he pronounced, "is the world." By 1900, his 57 varieties were available in every continent. Global capitalism and imperial expansion developed in collaboration; shared aims, aspirations, patterns of influence. Today, most of the world's political empires have been dissolved and discredited, but the routes along which capital moves remain the same. After Rhodes came Nestlé, Coca-Cola, BP, McDonald's, Microsoft.
In 1896, Rhodes's name was linked with the Jameson Raid – a disastrous (and illegal) attempt to annex Transvaal territory held by the Boers, and a principal cause of the South African War of 1899-1902. His reputation in Britain accrued a lasting tarnish. A defence of his character, published in 1897 and co-authored by the pseudonymous "Imperialist", offers an insight into the charges against him: "Bribery and corruption", "neglect of duty", "harshness to the natives" and the allegation that "that Mr Rhodes is utterly unscrupulous". His lifelong companion Dr Leander Starr Jameson – a future premier of the Cape Colony and the leader of the ill-fated raid – added a postscript insisting that some of Rhodes's best blacks were friends: "His favourite Sunday pastime was to go into the De Beers native compound, where he had built them a fine swimming bath, and throw in shillings for the natives to dive for. He knew enough of their languages to talk to them freely, and they looked up to him – indeed, fairly worshipped the great white man."
Did anyone buy this stuff? After Rhodes's fatal heart attack on 26 March 1902, the death notices were ambivalent. News editors across the world cleared their pages for obituaries and reports of public grief in South Africa, but few wholehearted endorsements of his career emanated from London. "He has done more than any single contemporary to place before the imagination of his countrymen a clear conception of the Imperial destinies of our race," conceded The Times, "[but] we wish we could forget the other matters associated with his name." Empire-builders such as Rhodes, the paper said, attracted as much opprobrium as praise: "On the one hand they are enthusiastically admired, on the other they are stones of stumbling, they provoke a degree of repugnance, sometimes of hatred, in exact proportion to the size of their achievements." Jameson and "Imperialist", it seems, had not succeeded in rehabilitating their mentor.
But the story of Rhodes's posthumous reputation is just as complex and contentious as that of his life and career. And curiously, his sexuality was one of the main battlegrounds. In 1911, Rhodes's former private secretary Philip Jourdan wrote a biography of his late employer in order to counter "the most unjust libels with reference to his private life [which] were being disseminated throughout the length and breadth of the country". Despite the aggressive romantic attentions of a Polish adventuress and forger named Princess Catherine Radziwill, Rhodes was indifferent to women and gained a reputation for misogyny. His most intense relationships were with men – his private secretary Neville Pickering, who died in his arms; Jameson, whom he met at the diamond mines in Kimberley where, the doctor recalled, "we shared a quiet little bachelor establishment"; and Johnny Grimmer, of whom Jourdan (defeating the purpose of his memoir) said: "He liked Johnny to be near him... The two had many little quarrels. On one occasion for a couple of days they hardly exchanged a word. They were not unlike two schoolboys."
Rhodes's excuse for remaining single was the one used today by members of boy bands: "I know everybody asks why I do not marry. I cannot get married. I have too much work on my hands." Instead, he accumulated a shifting entourage of young men, known as "Rhodes's lambs". It's probable that these relationships were more homosocial than homosexual, but that didn't stop the gossips or biographical theoreticians. In 1946, Stuart Collete suggested Rhodes was "one of those who, passing beyond the ordinary heterosexuality of the common man, that the French call l'homme moyen sensual, was beyond bisexuality, beyond homosexuality and was literally asexual – beyond sex. It appears to have had no literal meaning to him except as a human weakness that he understood he could exploit in others". The same biographer wove these comments into an analysis of Rhodes's appeal to another set of posthumous acolytes: the Nazis.
As the 20th century moved on, Rhodes's memory became increasingly attractive to extreme (and eventually moderate) right-wing opinion. Oswald Spengler's The Decline of the West (1918) hailed him as "the first precursor of a Western type of Caesar – in our Germanic world, the spirits of Alaric and Theodoric will come again – there is a first hint of them in Cecil Rhodes".
It's easy to see why Spengler, and later Hitler, were fans. Asked by Jameson how long he would endure in memory, Rhodes replied: "I give myself four thousand years." To the journalist WT Stead he said: "I would annex the planets, if I could. I often think of that." When, in 1877, he first made his will, he urged his executors to use his fortune to establish a secret society that would aim to redden every area of the planet. He envisioned a world in which British settlers would occupy Africa, the Middle East, South America, the Pacific and Malay islands, China and Japan, before restoring America to colonial rule and founding an imperial world government. "He was deeply impressed," Jameson recalled, "with a belief in the ultimate destiny of the Anglo-Saxon race. He dwelt repeatedly on the fact that their great want was new territory fit for the overflow population to settle in permanently, and thus provide markets for the wares of the old country – the workshop of the world." It was a dream of mercantile Lebensraum for the English: an empire of entrepreneurs, occupying African territories in order to fill them with Sheffield cutlery, Tate & Lyle's Golden Syrup and Uncle Joe's Mint Balls.
But it was Rhodes's Alma Mater that did most to brighten his prestige. In 1899, Oxford University, an institution with a long and continuing history of accepting money from morally dubious millionaires, agreed to administer a more cuddly and less clandestine version of the "Imperial Carbonari" of the 1877 will: the Rhodes Scholars. In 1903, the first names were selected. A group of men fitted for "manly outdoor sports", who would display "qualities of manhood, truth, courage, devotion to duty, sympathy for the protection of the weak, kindliness, unselfishness and fellowship" – men such asBill Clinton, the CIA director Stansfield Turner, the first Secretary General of the Commonwealth Sir Arnold Smith, and the Nato Supreme Commander Bernard Rogers.
By 1936, ML Andrews was praising Rhodes's "vision of world peace, to be brought about by the domination of the English-speaking nations". In the same year the Gaumont-British film company produced the hagiographic movie, Rhodes of Africa. Two years later, the little Rhodes Museum was founded in Bishop's Stortford. When it reopens next year, children will, for a fiver, be able to sign up as one of "Rhodes's Little Rhinos".
A 1956 children's book, Peter Gibbs's The True Book About Cecil Rhodes – one of a series that also profiled Marie Curie, Captain Scott and Joan of Arc – is the best example of how, in the mid-20th century, Rhodes was reclaimed as a national hero. More unalloyed in its enthusiasm for Rhodes than any comparable 19th-century text, it makes for queasy reading. Especially, perhaps, if you were voting in Zimbabwe last weekend. Southern Rhodesia, it reports, is now "tamed and civilised and cultivated, and many thousands of white people have settled there, and made it their home. Today there are beautiful modern towns; homes, gardens, parks, towering blocks of offices and flats; factories, railways and airports. It is a new and thriving country of the British Commonwealth, where but recently only savages and wild animals dwelt. And it started from the dreams of one young Englishman – Cecil Rhodes".

Cecil Rhodes: A bad man in Africa - Africa, World - The Independent

Te adjunto una página interesante para la súbdita de su majestad Isabel II que tienes por profesora:

British Reparations.org - The International Coalition for British Reparations



What exactly has Britain done that's so awful?

Where to begin? By our analysis, the crimes of Britain fall into four major categories:
Genocide. Modern Britain was founded through the systematic erasure of indigenous culture and language. The English rounded up natives, seized their property, and forced them to relinquish their heritage and take on British language and culture as their own. Anyone who dissented faced extermination. This practice began in Scotland, Wales and Ireland and soon spread all over the world, where the British Empire plundered natural resources and enslaved native peoples then left without building the stable infrastructure or governments necessary for self-sufficiency.
The Industrial Revolution. Beginning in the 18th century, Britain began making our lives worse through the introduction of machines in the workplace. The health, safety, and wages of workers took a back seat to owners' greed for ever-higher output and profits. The skies above the city—first London, then the world—were filled with black smoke. Waters were poisoned with noxious chemicals. Under the careless watch Britain's elite, the Industrial Revolution got off to a horrible start, the consequences of which have continued to ring down through the centuries. The melting of the polar icecaps, the loss of countless plants and animal species, and the imperiled condition of the human race on a planet made poisonous by misapplied technology are all a consequence of British negligence and hunger to accumulate wealth at any cost.
Global Misrule. The terrorist threat has its roots in British mismanagement of the Middle East, particularly Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. Britain's imperialist past has so enraged Muslim extremists. Now America is deploying our sons, daughters, and tax dollars to clean up the mess that Britain made. The deaths caused by all the major wars of the 19th and early 20th century could have been prevented, or at least lessened, if the British hadn't waited until their backs were up against the wall before getting into the action. Most of the worst tyrants in power through the end of the 20th century were put there by the British, or came to power by filling the power vacuum the British Empire left behind.
Bad Inventions. Machine guns, slums, prisons, child labor, bad hygiene, the Black Plague, concentration camps, you name it. If it hurts people, the British probably came up with it.
Strangely enough, Britain has been very aggressive about making other countries pay for their historical misdeeds. Like a herd of raging soccer hooligans looting their rival's capital after a victory, they've extracted exorbitant reparations payments from Germany, France, and China, among others. Now it's their turn to pay.
If Britain really is behind all the world's problems as you say it is, how have they managed to keep up such a positive image for so long?

Britain has long controlled our patterns of thought through the modern university, an English invention. They control what we say through their hold over English, the global master language. More recently, they've bought the minds of some of our best and brightest—including numerous top U.S. politicians and public thinkers—through the Rhodes Scholarship, thus insuring that the false innocents of Britain's public image never has to face scrutiny.
How did you come up with the £31 trillion figure?

Thirty-one trillion pounds is a fairly arbitrary figure. Really, one could easily make the argument that Britain owes much more. But we came up with £31 trillion as a starting point by adding up the following costs:
First Iraq War: $71 billion (As estimated by the Department of Defense. The need for U.S. intervention in the Middle East is a direct consequence of Britain's early support of the House of Saud and conflicting promises made to the Israelis and Palestinians).
Second Iraq War: $282 billion+ (As calculated by Congressional Appropriations. The irrational anger of radical Islam as embodied in Saddam Hussein's rogue state, is the expression of a deep grudge that started with the slaughter's inflicted by the British crown during the Crusades and later, Britain's ruthless treatment of the old Ottoman Empire.)
Opium War Refund: $32.6 trillion ($21 million that Britain extorted from China through the Treaty of Nanking in 1842, with interest, compounded annually. Strange that China should have to pay up after it was Britain who got millions of her citizens hooked on opium.)
Versailles Refund $25 trillion ($26 billion that Britain extorted from defeated German government after World War I, with interest, compounded annually, an unfair and punitive settlement that was one of the primary causes of World War II.)
Who would the money go to, and how would it be distributed?

Everyone has suffered the consequences of the Evil Empire. We proposed to distribute the reparations monies equally between all the people of the world. Dividing a £31 trillion settlement between 6.5 billion people gives us roughly £4,770 or $8,350 for every man, woman, and child on earth. It's far from enough, but it's a start.
Why are you putting so much energy into rehashing the past when there are so many pressing current issues—such as the war in Iraq and the Darfur genocide—that demand our attention?

First of all, the Iraq war and Darfur genocide are not separate issues. They are two of the numerous consequences of the British Empire's mistakes. They can be traced directly back to the British Empire's shortsighted imperialist policies in the Middle East and Africa. Second, letting the British Empire get away with savaging the world's culture, economy, and environment without having to pay any price sets a terrible precedent, both for the present governments of the world and for future generations. Third, we believe the situations in Iraq and in the Sudan would be greatly improved if each citizen were to receive the full cash settlement of $8,350. Everything else being equal, people are less likely to fight when they have something to lose.

Os agradezco mucho vuestra ayuda e interés.. La gota colmó el vaso y soy muy quisquilloso con ciertos asuntos, no quiero ''envainar sin honor'', no es propio de nuestro pueblo.

Grande Chaval!!! asi se hace!!!
Los hispanistas argentinos estamos acostumbrados a esa ralea de pensadores
a sueldo (dicen que Green Peace fomenta el indigenismo odioso para dividir y reinar manejado por el MI 5 Ingles Servicio de Inteligencia)....
En los colegios estoy harto de lidiar con troskistas dibujados con auto O km e indegenistas a la violeta...hay un libro por estos lares que es su biblia de Eduardo Galeano un sobreviviente del derrumbe del socialismo real...que se llama "Las venas abiertas de América Latina" que simplemente es un panfleto sin sustento (verlo completo en http://www.formarse.com.ar/libros_gr...ratis.htm).Con lo dicho mas arriba por mis colegas tienes bastante material pero no te olvides de Julian Juderias que fue el que invento el término
"Leyenda Negra" (ver Julián Juderías y Loyot - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre y tambien http://perso.gratisweb.com/leyendasnegras/).

"POR CASTILLA SOMOS GENTES" (Padre Castañeda)

1. Pregúntale si ella es india.

2. Pregúntale qué ha sido de la nación Innuit en el Canadá.

3. Pregúntale cuántos indios quedan en EE UU y en Canadá, y cuántos aborígenes en Australia.

--luego hablále de las poblaciones y culturas de lo que ella llama South America

4. Compráte un ejemplar de La leyenda Negra, de Julián Juderías y estúdialo. Eso te llevará a las fuentes de la Leyenda Negra.

5. Si se pone borde, dile que este no es su país, y que ya que somos tan sanguinarios debería abandonarlo; no vaya a ser...

Estimado Cavaleiro :

Iniciado por Cavaleiro

1. Pregúntale si ella es india.

La respuesta es afirmativa...aunque es Hindú, que no es lo mismo que un indio.

Iniciado por Cavaleiro

2. Pregúntale qué ha sido de la nación Innuit en el Canadá.

Ella misma afirma que los blancos la exterminaron y/o confinaron en reservas

Iniciado por Cavaleiro

3. Pregúntale cuántos indios quedan en EE UU y en Canadá, y cuántos aborígenes en Australia.

--luego hablále de las poblaciones y culturas de lo que ella llama South America
.

Las de arriba aniquiladas por sajones y las de abajo por españoles.

Iniciado por Cavaleiro

4. Compráte un ejemplar de La leyenda Negra, de Julián Juderías y estúdialo. Eso te llevará a las fuentes de la Leyenda Negra.
.

¿Se puede comprar en una librería normal o hay que encargarlo?

Iniciado por Cavaleiro

5. Si se pone borde, dile que este no es su país, y que ya que somos tan sanguinarios debería abandonarlo; no vaya a ser...

Sí que lo es, bueno no. Sus antepasados vinieron y se quedaron. No es su país...no es siquiera su contienente pero ese argumento, en un país fundado por inmigrantes no tiene mucho sentido, a mi ver.

Contadle a la "profesora" como en los virreinatos hispánicos había una aristocracia mestiza, y negros/mulatos que adquirían gran prestigio social, etc. etc. Algo que no ocurría en las colonias anglónicas, donde se excluía a los mestizos, aún cuando hubiese pasado múltiples generaciones.

Sobre los españoles "clasistas" con los hispanoamericanos: Todos los españoles que he conocido me han tratado con gran deferencia y honra, algo que no puedo decir de los anglónicos.

Según mi experience los hindúes no saben nada de hispanoamérica. Se sorprenden al saber que Méjico es mas de diez veces mas rico que la paupérrima India, y muchísimo mas desarollado.

Stanley G. Payne: «La resistencia de España es impresionante, los españoles lo han soportado todo»

El historiador norteamericano publica el libro «365 momentos claves de la Historia de España», deteniéndose en los grandes hitos de siglos de un país que lo ha soportado todo y tiene un pasado «extraordinario, exótico y lleno de altibajos»




Fotografía de Stanley G. Payne


César Cervera - C_Cervera_M

22/02/2017 02:55h - Actualizado: 23/02/2017 18:21h. Guardado en: Historia


Los historiadores son profetas del pasado. Relatan y analizan lo que ocurrió en otro tiempo, sabiendo que ciertas pautas de la historia se repiten de forma cíclica. Stanley G. Payne acaba de publicar «365 momentos clave de la Historia de España» (Espasa) a modo de recordatorio del riesgo de caer en los mismos errores por no conocer precisamente la letra pequeña de la historia. El libro repasa brevemente los acontecimientos más destacados de España, donde política, cultura y deporte convergen en un texto dividido en los 12 meses del año. Si bien su especialidad ha sido siempre el periodo de la Segunda República y el Franquismo, este catedrático emérito de Historia en la Universidad de Wisconsin-Madison se atreve esta vez con una obra que se remonta hasta tiempos de Hispania y no duda en revisar los puntos más controvertidos: «Para los historiadores de izquierda del siglo XXI hay verdades inamovibles. Ven el revisionismo como algo negativo. Son los nuevos católicos españoles del siglo XVII».


–¿Desde cuándo se puede hablar de España como tal?

–En todos los países occidentales el germen empieza en la Edad Media, porque había una identidad española, pero hasta la Edad Moderno no podemos hablar de entidad política. No obstante, con los Reyes Católicos llegó esta identidad hasta cierto punto, porque la suya era una monarquía casi confederada, como en la mayoría de grandes países europeos. La diferencia es que España tuvo más dificultades que otros países para superar esta situación de gran pluralismo. Inglaterra también tuvo confederación con Escocia y Gales y de dominación en Irlanda, pero los ingleses tuvieron menos dificultades para superarlo.


–«Spain is diferent» fue un lema adquirido durante el Franquismo para vender las peculiaridades españolas como algo positivo, ¿realmente es un país diferente?

–Todos los países son diferentes, pero es verdad que Inglaterra, Rusia y España son realmente excepcionales en Europa. España es diferente por dos cosas: por la presencia de Oriente Próximo durante la era del Al Andalus y la Reconquista; y por la gran potencia que fue, la mayor, en el siglo XVI y durante un largo periodo de tiempo. No estamos hablando de un Hitler o un Napoleón, que sostuvieron la hegemonía durante unos años. No. España soportó el cetro europeo durante más de un siglo, a pesar de que Francia era un país con más potencial económico, militar y demográfico. En este sentido, la pérdida de la hegemonía estuvo acompañado del fracaso de la modernización en el país.







–Dice usted que España y Rusia comparten la peculiaridad, tal vez por cuestiones geográficas, ¿hay símiles entre ambos países?

–Muy pocos. España sí logró la democracia con la Segunda República, a pesar de sus limitaciones y deficiencias; mientras que Rusia nunca la obtuvo. Es un país más primitivo en términos políticos, menos desarrollado y más infraeuropeo. A ciertos círculos de izquierda les ha gustado esta comparación para decir que «somos países de pueblo», de gente baja, común, y que por eso iban a tener más éxito las revoluciones. Es una comparación incompleta. Aquí hubo revoluciones pero no solo protagonizadas por bolcheviques, sino que hubo otros grupos revolucionarios con mayor protagonismo. También Inglaterra es peculiar, pero allí las diferencias casi siempre son positivas; en España positivas y negativas.


–Define en su libro la historia de España como extraordinaria, exótica y llena de altibajos. ¿Cuáles son estos altibajos?

–El principal de ellos es que casi fue conquistada y borrada del mapa por otra civilización, que fueron los árabes. Los mismos españoles de la época no entendieron esa situación y tardaron mucho en iniciar la Reconquista.


–En este sentido, hay autores que cuestionan el término Reconquista como un único hecho histórico o parte de un mismo conflicto.

–Ortega y Gasset ya dijo que algo que había durado ocho siglos no se le puede llamar Reconquista, pero ¿por qué no? No depende del tiempo sino de otros factores. No cabe duda de que al final se expulsó a los extranjeros y se cambió completamente la forma de vivir de los peninsulares. Si no quieren llamarlo Reconquista me parece muy bien, ¡inventemos otro término! Pero el hecho histórico existe.


–¿Cuáles son las oportunidades perdidas en la historia de España?

–Con mayor unidad, los visigodos habrían podido rechazar a los musulmanes y la historia hubiera cambiado radicalmente. Al final del siglo XV hubo oportunidades utilizadas muy bien en cuanto a la expansión del imperio, pero aparecieron luego errores a nivel exterior y de política económica. Había mucha debilidad en las instituciones del Antiguo Régimen. Lo sorprendente es que a pesar de los grandes desastres España supo mantener la hegemonía militar durante más de un siglo.

Más tarde, con la introducción del liberalismo en Españas hubo otra oportunidad perdida, porque aquí hubo un liberalismo muy temprano, tal vez demasiado temprano, que no se supo aprovechar. Habría sido necesario mayor unidad y moderación en el liberalismo.

Otra oportunidad perdida es la Segunda República. Se logró la democracia y se perdió rápido. La sublevación del 18 de julio no fue contra la democracia sino contra la pérdida de la democracia. Lo que no quita que Franco demostrara más tarde que él no era nada democrático.





El rey Don Rodrigo arengando a sus tropas en la batalla de Guadalete, de Bernardo Blanco (1871)



–Comenta usted que a pesar de todo el Imperio español siguió como gran potencia durante siglos, ¿cómo lo logró?

–España tenía una gran determinación, había mucha unidad entre españoles a través de una visión muy pluralista del Antiguo Régimen y había calidad militar. Por eso fue una potencia con capacidad de resistir incluso después del debilitamiento sufrido en el siglo XVII. Se mantuvo varias generaciones más y la Guerra de Sucesión sirvió para desprenderse de territorios europeos imposibles de defender. No se podía mantener un imperio tan disperso y de entidades jurídicas tan distintas.


–¿Qué es lo más celebrable que ha hecho España por la humanidad?

–El mundo le debe haber logrado la recuperación de España para la Europa cristiana durante la Reconquista. Así como la extensión de la cultura occidental en su versión española al resto del mundo a partir del Descubrimiento de América. También los primeros brotes del Derecho internacional y la derrota del imperialismo napoleónico.


–Hablando de expansión, ahora los conquistadores son calificados más bien de genocidas y el episodio de la conquista criticada duramente.

–No es solo un problema exclusivo de España. La fiebre de lo políticamente correcto está en todas partes. Hay que entender que la Conquista de América tuvo muchos beneficios para estos pueblos. En el caso de los aztecas y los incas no hay que olvidar que eran imperios opresores; lo que estaba siendo reemplazado no era nada idílico. Es un asunto muy complicado, la verdad.


–Aquí la corrección política se suma a la leyenda negra que arrastra nuestra historia.

–El origen de la leyenda negra es el relato que contaron los enemigos, los protestantes, sobre España. No es una leyenda negra totalmente falsa, porque también hubo cosas muy negativas del Imperio español. Lo peculiar es que la leyenda negra ha sido asumida ampliamente por los propios españoles. No en vano, ahora la tendencia cultural es la de que todos los países critiquen su propia historia. España es especialmente extremista en este aspecto.


–Define en la introducción del libro el siglo XIX como un tiempo de excesivos experimentos políticos.

–Ocurre que la élite española siempre ha estado más o menos al mismo nivel que la cultura occidental contemporánea, pero no tenían una sociedad civil detrás para sostener los cambios políticos. No al menos con un nivel de educación y de desarrollo social suficiente. Esta contradicción no cambió hasta 1975. Durante el franquismo se volteó la situación: entró en una situación en la que el país tenía una estructura política más postergada que su sociedad civil.


–En la historiografía española está muy mal visto el concepto de revisionismo. Tiene una connotación negativa, ¿por qué?

–La historia es un constante análisis y una sucesión de nuevas investigaciones. Para los historiadores de izquierda del siglo XXI hay una verdad inamovible, que no se puede cambiar y nadie puede cuestionar. Han adquirido la misma postura que la antigua Iglesia católica. Son los nuevos católicos españoles del siglo XVII.


–¿Qué episodios históricos corre prisa revisar por desvirtuados?

–Todo lo que ocurrió en la década de los años 30, una época muy mitificada. De hecho, está siendo revisada últimamente, como demuestra el libro de las elecciones del Frente Popular que van a publicar en unas semanas Manuel Álvarez Tardío y Roberto Villa García. Va a ser muy revolucionario.

Además de los héroes culturales, me parece admirable Francisco de Vitoria, como precursor del Derecho internacional

–¿Cuáles son los personajes históricos que más admiración le han provocado realizando el libro?

–Hay un personaje que no ha tenido el tributo merecido: Alfonso IX, el último gran Rey de León. Es una figura bastante desconocida. Además de los héroes culturales, me parece admirable Francisco de Vitoria, como precursor del Derecho internacional, y políticos como Cánovas del Castillo. Él fue un estadista verdaderamente grande, al que admiro mucho.


–¿Y las figuras más fatídicas, los malos?

–Algunos reyes visigodos son muy malos; así como los reyes españoles de la Edad Moderna son muy criticables. De entre los políticos más reciente el más negativo es Zapatero, que ha hecho todo lo posible para dividir a los españoles y hacer cambios destructivos e innecesarios. Fue el primer presidente socialista después de González, pero resultó ser un anti-gonzález. Felipe González fue el mejor líder socialista en la larga historia del partido.


–El libro se queda en hechos muy recientes, incluso anecdóticos, ¿qué es lo siguiente que cabe escribir de esta historia?

–Somos profetas del pasado. Es difícil saber lo que está por venir. España seguirá viviendo dentro del molde y de las instituciones de Europa. Seguirá unificada a pesar de todo lo que está ocurriendo en Cataluña, pero quién sabe... No hay una resolución fácil en este asunto. Lo explico muy bien Ortega hace casi un siglo: es un problema que hay que conllevar y soportar en los mejores términos, pero que no se puede resolver definitivamente. En cualquier caso, la resistencia de este país es impresionante. Diría Franco que el español es muy paciente y sabe perseverar, en tanto, es fácil gobernarlos como lo prueba el que hayan soportado toda clase de regímenes.





_______________________________

Fuente:

Stanley G. Payne: «La resistencia de España es impresionante, los españoles lo han soportado todo»

Nunca he leído a Payne. Y dudo que lo haga. No comparto su visión, al menos no toda.Creo que para haberse dedicado a la historia es parco en explicación sincera, o será su visón, no se. Pero aunque venda mucho este libro como otros yo personalmente en referencia a la historia de España iré a otras fuentes. Aparte no estoy deacuerdo con él en algunos puntos. Para mí no es ningún referente su obra ni creo que lo sea.

Iniciado por Val

. Ah, y me apuesto un céntimo de euro que tu profe es de izquierdas.

Pues no lo sé, en este país todos son progres...hasta el partido ''conservador'' está a favor del condón, la inmigración sin sentido, el aborto (sobre lo cual voy a encontrar un hueco para hablaros) y como no están en contra del catolicismo.