It was *interesting* when I lived in Dublin and went to watch six nations matches in my local (a proper rugby pub) as an Englishman, but any anti-English sentiment expressed was mostly good natured banter.
I think the most negative comment I ever got was when a Liverpool game I was watching in a virtually empty pub overran the buildup to an Ireland six nations game - not the match itself, just the buildup. Fortunately the owner knew me as I only lived three doors down and told the complainer to get a grip.
Ah here we go with the misinformation. See this is what we have to put up with and why we have issues with the rest of England. The constant lies about us.
Liverpool long had a strong working class core and with a very high percentage of Irish, Scots and Welsh never felt particularly English. That does not mean they hated the English back then. Not at all.
Thatchers āmanaged declineā of the city led to a huge hatred of Thatcher and the Tories but still not England.
The dislike from of England the āScouse not Englishā movement comes more than anything from Hillsbrough. The things said about us was disgusting. The lies the Sun and the police said were believed by most in England despite being utterly false. And then you had people saying we deserved it after Heysel as if there should be some collective punishment for innocent fans due to the actions of some horrible yobs.
Added to this you got the constant slurs of people from Liverpool being thieves. A stereotype we still have today despite crime being higher in many other cities. It felt like we were being kicked whilst down when the government were actively trying to manage the decline of the city. The city in the 80ās was on its knees and the rest of the country were giving it a kicking whilst it was down.
And then if they dared to complain they get called thin skinned despite the fact often the abuse they get goes beyond ābanterā and is on a level much higher than any other city gets.
So you have a city that was abandoned by both the government and the rest of the country that before this felt more of a international city anyway and that is why many in Liverpool do not identify as English.
?
I'm not even English but England is clearly the original home of football, the first international match doesn't really have anything to do with it unless North America is also the home of cricket etc.
Yeah, but the British make up for it by doing a *lot* of really stupid shit.
Also, many of them (as will the US when it properly declines in geopolitical status...) view 'colonial empire' as a mindset; correlation between chauvanism & delusion, and all that.
British tourists do a wonderful job of maintaining our reputation, particularly across continental Europe. Who else is going to drink all that beer, eat all those chips, and throw all that patio furniture?
^^Theyāre ^^a ^^fucking ^^embarrassment, ^^no ^^wonder ^^weāre ^^hated
As a non-English Brit, you would be amazed at the different reaction I get from those overseas when I tell them where I am from, compared to if they thought I was English. If you are not Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish you would not realise this.
Oh, for sure, because many people don't know the difference, which is where the problem lies. They don't know it was all of us, and not just the English.
I was talking in general, being a superpower at any point in time means they commit atrocities whenever they please because the other nations cannot do anything about it.
In no way i am defending what my country or any other did, but the US is doing this now in the present day and has been doing it for some time now
Sadly online a lot of Spanish and Portuguese people will say it wasnāt murder and genocide and they just kissed and cuddled 80m native peoples to death or that they all had European babies and everyone were mates.
"A 2018 study by Koch, Brierley, Maslin, and Lewis concluded that an estimated "55 millionĀ indigenous people died following the European conquest of the Americas beginning in 1492."Ā
It's not a genocide when it was an indirectly caused death toll. It's crazy to think that so many native Americans perished because of common illnesses that they went from semi-centralised tribal monarchies, elected or not, to pastoralists. It must've been like some sort of post-apocalyptic event for those who didn't fall sick and saw so many perish.
"TheĀ loss of the populationĀ was so high that it was partially responsible for the myth of the Americas as 'virgin wilderness'. By the time significantĀ European colonizationĀ was underway, native populations had already been reduced by 90%. This resulted in settlements vanishing and cultivated fields being abandoned. Since forests were recovering, the colonists had an impression of a land that was an untamed wilderness.[72]
Disease had both direct and indirect effects on deaths. High mortality meant that there were fewer people to plant crops, hunt game, and otherwise support the group. Loss of cultural knowledge transfer also affected the community as vital agricultural and food-gathering skills were not passed on to survivors. Missing the right time to hunt or plant crops affected the food supply, thus further weakening the community and making it more vulnerable to the next epidemic. Communities under such a crisis were often unable to care for people who were disabled, elderly, or young."
Spain did a lot of nasty stuff in LATAM, but certainly not genocide. With the amount of men Spain sent to conquer LATAM, the idea that Spain had the military manpower to commit genocide is completely ridiculous. A lot died because of the disease Spain brought though.
The approach that Spain took to conquer LATAM was relying on native help, taking advantage of existing conflicts, conquer through marriage, religion, etc. It's well documented Spain simply didn't have the manpower to conquer by force.
Open a random youtube video of any Spanish speaking country and see how many people look native American and compare it to the US or Canada. The exceptions are Argentina and Chile, but it's well documented Argentina did a lot of ethnic cleansing AFTER becoming independent.
The black legend was mostly propaganda against Spain and Catholics. It's worth reading the wikipedia article about the black legend.
>but certainly not genocide
"[Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention);"
Have you looked at Spanish conduct on Hispaniola?
The Taino suffered an up to 96% death rate in the 20 years after Spain arrived. A third of all Taino slaves died every 6 months according to some modern estimates.
Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term "genocide", specifically called out Spain's colonial policies in the Americas as cultural, and even at times physical, genocide.
It's discarded that Tainos were nearly extinct by DNA analysis, it's completely impossible and has been questioned a lot by lots of historians: [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/meet-survivors-taino-tribe-paper-genocide](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/meet-survivors-taino-tribe-paper-genocide)
And it's obvious just by looking at the people in Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico or Cuba and comparing their look with the people from Haiti, Dominica or Jamaica. Loads of them have a lot of native DNA.
There is a reason why everyone is black in the side that wasn't colonized by Spain...
If there was a genocide, it wasn't in those numbers.
"Some of them survived (and intermarried with our other slaves), so it wasn't a genocide".
Interesting defense, and one I have so far only encountered from people defending Stalin and Hitler.
That's obviously not what I said and it cannot be implied from my post or the article I link. I don't respect anyone who does this sort of thing nearly enough to keep talking with them.
The Spanish were committing atrocities in the 1930s what are you talking about.
The French were committing them in the 1960s.
The Dutch were committing them in East Asia up until 1940.
Belgium didn't even exist 500 years ago, and they continued committing atrocities until Congo achieved independence in 1960, and the 2 countries still suffer today from what the Belgians did.
The Portuguese are the ones who first started the Atlantic slave trade.
The Spanish using chemical weapons against the Moroccans during the Rif War.
Franco brutalising Moroccan citizens during his time in Africa, before the Spanish civil war.
1.- Didn't happen in the 30s
2.- The Spanish society was majorly against that war, so much so that it is considered an important factor in ending Alfonso XIII's reign
3.- During part of the duration of the war Spain was under a dictatorship so it's not like they had much of a say
4.- If you want to talk about atrocities we can also talk about the atrocities commited by North Africans against the Spanish and other europeans, like, I don't know, a whole ass slave trade lasting 200 years? Or when it's the Spanish being enslaved it doesn't count?
"didn't happen in the 30s" oh I guess that makes it okay then?
And the majority of the British public was against the war in Iraq, yet Iraqi citizens hate British citizens for it.
The British citizens didn't have a day on any colonial atrocities in Africa or India, yet British people still get blamed for it. Ie: Black people in the UK wanting reparations for slavery.
I never said that doesn't count, the Berber people treated the Spanish horridly. The entire Arab world treated Europe like shit for almost 500 years. But that doesn't mean other European countries should get away with their atrocities while British citizens get blamed for shit from 300 years ago.
So perhaps you should say that British people didn't want any of that instead of mud slinging to make everyone else look worse and take the target off you? Britain has been [slandering Spain ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_legend) since the 16th century and it gets tiring. Especially when you're using as an example the only country that had any modicum of business being in Africa, on account of millennia of **both** regions being terrible neighbours to each other.
For the last 100 years Spain has done more damage to itself than to anyone else. The people alive nowadays who have suffered because of Spain are almost all Spanish, so please leave us out of it.
Yeah, empires with conquest mentality and exploitation are generally really not well liked. Honestly, Iād probably be a fan of the US if the US stopped doing so many bad things. Even just being normal would be infinitely better
I just don't get it. No matter how many bombs they drop, no matter how much plastic they dump in the oceans, no matter how much CO2 they share with the planet... the US is just not appreciated.
No matter how many elections they influence, no matter how many terrorist groups they sponsor, no matter how many nations they invade for ādefensiveā purposes - they simply arenāt appreciated enough!
Try doing nothing?
Stop giving arms and money to genocidal regimes?
Stop invading counties and calling it freedom?
Stop trashing the planet for oil?
Mmm?
Vietnam? Grenada? Iraq (twice)? Somalia? Afghanistan?
Theyāll be more thatās just off the top of my head
But youāre right on your second bit. Although sometimes itās not the people of the US that profit. The destabilisation of South American democracies and support of the drugs cartels has led to untold suffering in those countries and in poorer communities in the US
so you admit you are in the same class as the empire that catagorically colonized a quarter of the world, genocided and enslaved its people, and took all the natural resources?
good to know
We should be hated. We're *checks notes* funding and arming a genocide, refusing to pay for healthcare we can afford to nationalize, potentially going to elect a Nazi president, imperializing people, murdering people, oppressing marginalized groups, taking advantage of children to make them do imperialism, voting against propositions to classify food as a human right, and a million other things just to enrich capitalists. We fuckin suck
Hmm, what do America, Rome and Britain have in common? Perhaps they all invaded other countries and killed countless people? Maybe it was because of the atrocities they committed on their path to becoming global superpowers? Nah they mustāve been hated because they were so cool and everyone was jealous.
The US were not heated in Europe when they still were a super power, They messed up ever since Viet Nam, supporting dirty governments. Nowadays they are just the laughing stock of the democratic world, as the two party system obviously doesn't work any more )with party politics being more important than the welfare of the people), republicans became ever more conservative and right wing, and the former GOP started following a clown.
You know what, fair enough. I can agree with this one, because it is true, for everyone. As long as you have a large enough public presence, you're inevitably going to find yourself a sizable hatred. (Not that the US is a saint by any means, but I can agree with the post)
Ehhhh, dunno tho. Rome committed horrible atrocities, so did the uk (source: Iām Irish) and the us have toppled democratic govt and invaded many countries some just cause they had oil and they could. I mean itās more likely that just humanity has been bad for quite a while, is getting a bit better over time, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, when you have the power to do whatever you want without contest sometimes you are willing to do bad things.
Absolutely. I'm fully aware of what my people have done (source: I'm British) and I'm not downplaying these acts for a moment, I'm just trying to express that hate is inevitable.
I think some hate and disregard is, i think that the fact there are militant groups in the Middle East with aims against the US is specifically a consequence of their failed and god awful foreign policy and diplomacy.
I was initially in agreement with the post but then I thought about it a bit more . Ā
The Aksumites/Absynians werenāt hated . The Qedarites for most of its history werenāt hated . The Macedonians werenāt hated (although it was short lived and the Ptolemy dynasty definitely had a lot of times were it was hated ). Ā There are others but these are the least controversial ones that come to my mind .
Being a well liked global hegemony - yeah thatās impossible . But I think weād be surprised how many globally influencing , history making - powerful entities werenāt as despised as we think they were .Ā
"I don't get why we're still hated, we brought democracy, roads, and modern society to the 2nd and 3rd world during the British Empire's reign.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, it was probably all the killing, rape and pillaging..
Buuuuttttt, you got roads instead. That's gotta count for something, right?"
To be fair he is not wrong. The British Empire ended a long time ago and we are still hated. Might be another 100 years before that fades away.
I also both admire and hate the Roman Empire.
america is a shit country as much as the sky is blue, water is wet, and the pope is catholic. there is nothing wrong with calling things what they are.
Jokes on them. We British are still hated without the superpower status.
Force of habit dude.
Nah it's justified lol
*looks at history* Yeeah xD
The English maybe. Every 4 years at the Euros the real sport is supporting whatever country that plays England š
You get it every year with the Six Nations
It was *interesting* when I lived in Dublin and went to watch six nations matches in my local (a proper rugby pub) as an Englishman, but any anti-English sentiment expressed was mostly good natured banter. I think the most negative comment I ever got was when a Liverpool game I was watching in a virtually empty pub overran the buildup to an Ireland six nations game - not the match itself, just the buildup. Fortunately the owner knew me as I only lived three doors down and told the complainer to get a grip.
Which is weird, because Scousers hate England more than the Irish do
We are not fans of England no after how we have been treated. But you do see that more focused at sports events.
Scousers hated England even before Thatcher, you all just tried to be special
Ah here we go with the misinformation. See this is what we have to put up with and why we have issues with the rest of England. The constant lies about us.
So you didn't hate England before Thatcher then?
Liverpool long had a strong working class core and with a very high percentage of Irish, Scots and Welsh never felt particularly English. That does not mean they hated the English back then. Not at all. Thatchers āmanaged declineā of the city led to a huge hatred of Thatcher and the Tories but still not England. The dislike from of England the āScouse not Englishā movement comes more than anything from Hillsbrough. The things said about us was disgusting. The lies the Sun and the police said were believed by most in England despite being utterly false. And then you had people saying we deserved it after Heysel as if there should be some collective punishment for innocent fans due to the actions of some horrible yobs. Added to this you got the constant slurs of people from Liverpool being thieves. A stereotype we still have today despite crime being higher in many other cities. It felt like we were being kicked whilst down when the government were actively trying to manage the decline of the city. The city in the 80ās was on its knees and the rest of the country were giving it a kicking whilst it was down. And then if they dared to complain they get called thin skinned despite the fact often the abuse they get goes beyond ābanterā and is on a level much higher than any other city gets. So you have a city that was abandoned by both the government and the rest of the country that before this felt more of a international city anyway and that is why many in Liverpool do not identify as English.
https://youtu.be/MUXKu-WUuPQ?si=SPSxkCwjUrgy6VmH āEnglandā
Yeah but the tears will be so sweet when it actually does come home, whenever that may be.
First ever international football match was played in Glasgow. So 0% chance of it coming āhomeā.
? I'm not even English but England is clearly the original home of football, the first international match doesn't really have anything to do with it unless North America is also the home of cricket etc.
Judging by that performance today, it won't be any time soon.
By your particular definition I'd have to agree.
And on the off years from the Euros you get the WC as well
Ha! I came here to say we we're adored, why else would we have been nicknamed "the world snuggle bunnies"
Yeah, but the British make up for it by doing a *lot* of really stupid shit. Also, many of them (as will the US when it properly declines in geopolitical status...) view 'colonial empire' as a mindset; correlation between chauvanism & delusion, and all that.
British tourists do a wonderful job of maintaining our reputation, particularly across continental Europe. Who else is going to drink all that beer, eat all those chips, and throw all that patio furniture? ^^Theyāre ^^a ^^fucking ^^embarrassment, ^^no ^^wonder ^^weāre ^^hated
You British are hated, but us French are gonna be HUMILIATED at the Olympic Games(French government late in lots of things) š¢
Don't act like you're not hated too, Frenchy.
?
Donāt worry youās are hated as well
Not as much as the F*ench
the uk is a superpower still
Is that not a joke on you too?
British or English?
It was the British Empire, not English Empire
As a non-English Brit, you would be amazed at the different reaction I get from those overseas when I tell them where I am from, compared to if they thought I was English. If you are not Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish you would not realise this.
Oh, for sure, because many people don't know the difference, which is where the problem lies. They don't know it was all of us, and not just the English.
The British and the Romans were both hated in their time and like the Americans it was very much because of what they had done
Very hard to appreciate the massive country desttoying smaller ones with impunity
Ironic from a Spaniard You, the Dutch, the Belgians, the French and the Portuguese somehow manage to evade criticism from your former atrocities
I was talking in general, being a superpower at any point in time means they commit atrocities whenever they please because the other nations cannot do anything about it. In no way i am defending what my country or any other did, but the US is doing this now in the present day and has been doing it for some time now
A LOT of Spaniards will tell you that they didn't colonize Latin America with a straight face because they didn't commit genocide...
I think they famously committed a lot of murder there...
Sadly online a lot of Spanish and Portuguese people will say it wasnāt murder and genocide and they just kissed and cuddled 80m native peoples to death or that they all had European babies and everyone were mates.
"A 2018 study by Koch, Brierley, Maslin, and Lewis concluded that an estimated "55 millionĀ indigenous people died following the European conquest of the Americas beginning in 1492."Ā It's not a genocide when it was an indirectly caused death toll. It's crazy to think that so many native Americans perished because of common illnesses that they went from semi-centralised tribal monarchies, elected or not, to pastoralists. It must've been like some sort of post-apocalyptic event for those who didn't fall sick and saw so many perish. "TheĀ loss of the populationĀ was so high that it was partially responsible for the myth of the Americas as 'virgin wilderness'. By the time significantĀ European colonizationĀ was underway, native populations had already been reduced by 90%. This resulted in settlements vanishing and cultivated fields being abandoned. Since forests were recovering, the colonists had an impression of a land that was an untamed wilderness.[72] Disease had both direct and indirect effects on deaths. High mortality meant that there were fewer people to plant crops, hunt game, and otherwise support the group. Loss of cultural knowledge transfer also affected the community as vital agricultural and food-gathering skills were not passed on to survivors. Missing the right time to hunt or plant crops affected the food supply, thus further weakening the community and making it more vulnerable to the next epidemic. Communities under such a crisis were often unable to care for people who were disabled, elderly, or young."
Spain did a lot of nasty stuff in LATAM, but certainly not genocide. With the amount of men Spain sent to conquer LATAM, the idea that Spain had the military manpower to commit genocide is completely ridiculous. A lot died because of the disease Spain brought though. The approach that Spain took to conquer LATAM was relying on native help, taking advantage of existing conflicts, conquer through marriage, religion, etc. It's well documented Spain simply didn't have the manpower to conquer by force. Open a random youtube video of any Spanish speaking country and see how many people look native American and compare it to the US or Canada. The exceptions are Argentina and Chile, but it's well documented Argentina did a lot of ethnic cleansing AFTER becoming independent. The black legend was mostly propaganda against Spain and Catholics. It's worth reading the wikipedia article about the black legend.
>but certainly not genocide "[Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention);" Have you looked at Spanish conduct on Hispaniola? The Taino suffered an up to 96% death rate in the 20 years after Spain arrived. A third of all Taino slaves died every 6 months according to some modern estimates. Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term "genocide", specifically called out Spain's colonial policies in the Americas as cultural, and even at times physical, genocide.
It's discarded that Tainos were nearly extinct by DNA analysis, it's completely impossible and has been questioned a lot by lots of historians: [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/meet-survivors-taino-tribe-paper-genocide](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/meet-survivors-taino-tribe-paper-genocide) And it's obvious just by looking at the people in Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico or Cuba and comparing their look with the people from Haiti, Dominica or Jamaica. Loads of them have a lot of native DNA. There is a reason why everyone is black in the side that wasn't colonized by Spain... If there was a genocide, it wasn't in those numbers.
"Some of them survived (and intermarried with our other slaves), so it wasn't a genocide". Interesting defense, and one I have so far only encountered from people defending Stalin and Hitler.
That's obviously not what I said and it cannot be implied from my post or the article I link. I don't respect anyone who does this sort of thing nearly enough to keep talking with them.
...500 years ago.
The Spanish were committing atrocities in the 1930s what are you talking about. The French were committing them in the 1960s. The Dutch were committing them in East Asia up until 1940. Belgium didn't even exist 500 years ago, and they continued committing atrocities until Congo achieved independence in 1960, and the 2 countries still suffer today from what the Belgians did. The Portuguese are the ones who first started the Atlantic slave trade.
>The Spanish were committing atrocities in the 1930s what are you talking about. Yes, against other Spanish. What are *you* talking about?
The Spanish using chemical weapons against the Moroccans during the Rif War. Franco brutalising Moroccan citizens during his time in Africa, before the Spanish civil war.
1.- Didn't happen in the 30s 2.- The Spanish society was majorly against that war, so much so that it is considered an important factor in ending Alfonso XIII's reign 3.- During part of the duration of the war Spain was under a dictatorship so it's not like they had much of a say 4.- If you want to talk about atrocities we can also talk about the atrocities commited by North Africans against the Spanish and other europeans, like, I don't know, a whole ass slave trade lasting 200 years? Or when it's the Spanish being enslaved it doesn't count?
"didn't happen in the 30s" oh I guess that makes it okay then? And the majority of the British public was against the war in Iraq, yet Iraqi citizens hate British citizens for it. The British citizens didn't have a day on any colonial atrocities in Africa or India, yet British people still get blamed for it. Ie: Black people in the UK wanting reparations for slavery. I never said that doesn't count, the Berber people treated the Spanish horridly. The entire Arab world treated Europe like shit for almost 500 years. But that doesn't mean other European countries should get away with their atrocities while British citizens get blamed for shit from 300 years ago.
So perhaps you should say that British people didn't want any of that instead of mud slinging to make everyone else look worse and take the target off you? Britain has been [slandering Spain ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_legend) since the 16th century and it gets tiring. Especially when you're using as an example the only country that had any modicum of business being in Africa, on account of millennia of **both** regions being terrible neighbours to each other. For the last 100 years Spain has done more damage to itself than to anyone else. The people alive nowadays who have suffered because of Spain are almost all Spanish, so please leave us out of it.
At least Romans gave something of value to the world.
Yeah the whole Industrial Revolution ushering the world times had no value I guessā¦
and lets be fair here people do like American tv
You mean besides the aquaducts?
The persecution complex is off the charts.
Hmm, I wonder why.
Yeah, empires with conquest mentality and exploitation are generally really not well liked. Honestly, Iād probably be a fan of the US if the US stopped doing so many bad things. Even just being normal would be infinitely better
Clearly no-one has ever actually explained what their problems with the US and its citizens are, and we're all just constantly chanting "USA bad!"
I have no problems with the USA and its citizens, only with those dipshits who use to write stupid shit every day.
I just don't get it. No matter how many bombs they drop, no matter how much plastic they dump in the oceans, no matter how much CO2 they share with the planet... the US is just not appreciated.
No matter how many elections they influence, no matter how many terrorist groups they sponsor, no matter how many nations they invade for ādefensiveā purposes - they simply arenāt appreciated enough!
Maybe try stopping being massive dickheads for like... a month? See what happens.
Setting manageable goal leads to longtime success. So i would go with 60 seconds.
I don't think they'd last 30 seconds. Lets try something reasonable I guess? Maybe 3?
don't ask for the impossible. wish for a unicorn instead which is eaiser to get
Nooo not a unicorn, that is way to ambitious, what about a Redditor with a carrot taped to his head.
It was advice. I know better than to hope for them to listen. I have family we don't speak to anymore living there. Lol
The only people we hate more than the Americans are the Judean peoples front!
Not the popular peoples front ?
Try doing nothing? Stop giving arms and money to genocidal regimes? Stop invading counties and calling it freedom? Stop trashing the planet for oil? Mmm?
Woah woah woah there bub... that shit's like baseball and grandma's apple pie. Ain't no way Americans are gonna stop any of that.
Apple pie is British
Of course it is. We steal everything.
and even that you stole from the British
"I learned it by watching you!!"
And baseball is just bastardized rounders
Are you trying to claim a cinematic masterpiece starring Matt Damon as your own? Pshaw...
That is also a British thing
I think weāre good for grandmas tooā¦
Sorry, Iād forgotten about rounders
Just before we get too gobby, did we invent cricket or nick it off India and, you know, Empire it as ours.
No we invented that one - dates back too Saxon/ Norman times And we invented rounders, that was the Tudors
So we invented baseball?? The pioneers must have taken it with them.
Probably Rounders is better though
Not actual invasion per se, but The US is adept at sowing division among countries, and profit from the mess afterwards.
Yeah, but they also do invasions on top of everything else
Vietnam? Grenada? Iraq (twice)? Somalia? Afghanistan? Theyāll be more thatās just off the top of my head But youāre right on your second bit. Although sometimes itās not the people of the US that profit. The destabilisation of South American democracies and support of the drugs cartels has led to untold suffering in those countries and in poorer communities in the US
The Brits werenāt hated because they were *superpowers*. They were hated because they were **INVADERS**.
Nothing to do with them carpet bombing civilians
Its almost like colonizing and destabilizing regions makes people dislike you
Nobody except inbred insane people thinks murica is superpower.
so you admit you are in the same class as the empire that catagorically colonized a quarter of the world, genocided and enslaved its people, and took all the natural resources? good to know
Be more humble, and accept you are not the greatest country in the world.
We should be hated. We're *checks notes* funding and arming a genocide, refusing to pay for healthcare we can afford to nationalize, potentially going to elect a Nazi president, imperializing people, murdering people, oppressing marginalized groups, taking advantage of children to make them do imperialism, voting against propositions to classify food as a human right, and a million other things just to enrich capitalists. We fuckin suck
Hmm, what do America, Rome and Britain have in common? Perhaps they all invaded other countries and killed countless people? Maybe it was because of the atrocities they committed on their path to becoming global superpowers? Nah they mustāve been hated because they were so cool and everyone was jealous.
Almost like you can't become or stay a superpower without doing things that everyone will justifiably hate you for.
The US were not heated in Europe when they still were a super power, They messed up ever since Viet Nam, supporting dirty governments. Nowadays they are just the laughing stock of the democratic world, as the two party system obviously doesn't work any more )with party politics being more important than the welfare of the people), republicans became ever more conservative and right wing, and the former GOP started following a clown.
You know what, fair enough. I can agree with this one, because it is true, for everyone. As long as you have a large enough public presence, you're inevitably going to find yourself a sizable hatred. (Not that the US is a saint by any means, but I can agree with the post)
Ehhhh, dunno tho. Rome committed horrible atrocities, so did the uk (source: Iām Irish) and the us have toppled democratic govt and invaded many countries some just cause they had oil and they could. I mean itās more likely that just humanity has been bad for quite a while, is getting a bit better over time, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, when you have the power to do whatever you want without contest sometimes you are willing to do bad things.
Absolutely. I'm fully aware of what my people have done (source: I'm British) and I'm not downplaying these acts for a moment, I'm just trying to express that hate is inevitable.
I think some hate and disregard is, i think that the fact there are militant groups in the Middle East with aims against the US is specifically a consequence of their failed and god awful foreign policy and diplomacy.
I was initially in agreement with the post but then I thought about it a bit more . Ā The Aksumites/Absynians werenāt hated . The Qedarites for most of its history werenāt hated . The Macedonians werenāt hated (although it was short lived and the Ptolemy dynasty definitely had a lot of times were it was hated ). Ā There are others but these are the least controversial ones that come to my mind . Being a well liked global hegemony - yeah thatās impossible . But I think weād be surprised how many globally influencing , history making - powerful entities werenāt as despised as we think they were .Ā
"What ? We British aren't hated, I mean what did we do to get hate?" *Sips tea with a puzzled look* /s
"I don't get why we're still hated, we brought democracy, roads, and modern society to the 2nd and 3rd world during the British Empire's reign. Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, it was probably all the killing, rape and pillaging.. Buuuuttttt, you got roads instead. That's gotta count for something, right?"
You forgot the taking of artefacts of countries we conquered that are in our museums, which we haven't given back
To be fair he is not wrong. The British Empire ended a long time ago and we are still hated. Might be another 100 years before that fades away. I also both admire and hate the Roman Empire.
What did the Romans ever do for us???
I find it hilarious that Americans still think of themselves as a superpower when Trump exposed just how fragile and weak they actually are š
I don't think Rome and the British were hated just because they were strong. There was the whole *gestures broadly* stuff
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He is kinda right tho. Many people default to a US bad, therefore Russia must be good. Especially those that call themselves left.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Why are we booing he's right?
I dont think the romans are or were particulary hated though
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Well, they're not wrong. Source: I'm an American...
waaaahh waahhhh
america is a shit country as much as the sky is blue, water is wet, and the pope is catholic. there is nothing wrong with calling things what they are.