 
|
tissapharnes
|
Strangely enough in New Zealand the crown has been made to pay compensation for breach of treaty with the intengenous people. Despite the treaty not being recognised at international law. There have been a number of other treaties established during the colonising period, which if New Zelanad is precedent should burden the common wealth. Personally I am in the view that these indiginous peoples did not have the state sovereignty and capacity to enter into international relations that has been a corner stone in international law. I think that if Britain was to compensate pruely for war losses, then arguably America would owe Vietnam for breach of state sovereignty, Germany would owe Russia for breach of non agression pact (contract), and Greece would owe Iran for breach of Kings peace. I think there would be a indeterminate burden of liability and any orders to make effect such a action would be unjust on the world as it exists today |
|
totalgitfromwigan
|
Should Italy?
Germany?
France?
Spain?
Portugal?
USA?
China?
Israel? |
|
duc602
 |
hell no, you think if i whooped your *** would you pay expect me to pay your medical bills or vice versa. |
|
Snowy
 |
Why on earth should me and my children compensate anyone for something which was done hundreds of years before I was born, and which had already gone by the time I entered the world.
Why can't people move on into the future without constantly looking back and complaining about things which have gone? |
|
Paul Rules
|
no! They should pay us for the privilage of being associated with GREAT Britain! |
|
rumplesnitz
|
No, they should compensate Great Britain for the favor. |
|
The Landlord
|
should the Danes and Romans and Vikings and Normans compensate the Birish for colonising them? Very silly question |
|
Levi
|
a big fat YES! |
|
NuttyRedhead
|
If you start with the Brits, then you have to ask the Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese to do the same thing. What's the point? |
|
Mycroft
 |
No. In most cases colonization by the British brought civilization to warring, savage tribal areas that could hardly be characterized as "nations." |
|
Mr X
|
There are two ways to view imperialism of the 19th Century, and the confusing thing is that they both are valid. The thing you must be careful of is to assume that attitudes were then as they are now and to take a moral standpoint on this issue.
At the time of imperialism the British believed that they had a divine right to 'give' to nations their spirit of industry and commerce. they saw other nations as less developed and less morally upstanding as themselves. Therefore, they believed it was a duty to give the colonies their institutions and sense of economics.
Of course, this massively benefitted the British economy. But one thing that must not be forgotten is that it often benefitted the colonies' economies too and gave them a solid foundation from which to grow into the 20th century.
So, I believe you could say that the colonies have already been 'compensated' by the legacy of successful trade and governance that the British left.
However, this does not apply in all cases. For instance; Iraq. There are problems caused when an occupying power can no longer afford to support its imperial ambitions and has to give them up. Instability is often the outcome and can lead to dictatorships and/or civil war amongst other things.
However, in answer to your question i do not see why they should. Societies and cultures change and I believe that on the whole the Britisg did more good than harm. |
|
sajilc
|
ofcourse.they have to compensate their ex-colonies,like post.war germany had to do. |
|
tra
|
no of course not they shold be proud great britain is called great because thats exactly what it is. |
|
rose
|
.............. |
|
Wise_Guy
|
Nope, they were strong, and colonies were weak. and this is a jungle. |
|
kipneldy
 |
Hell mean Britain only all other countries who did so to other countries should pay reparation they raped our motherlands. |
|
SWIFFER THE WONDER MUTT
 |
NO.
WITHOUT GREAT BRITIAN MANY OF THOSE COUNTRIES WOULDN'T EXIST NOR WOULD THE BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN A VIABLE ECONOMY WITHOUT THE CROWN. |
|
took a little while
|
no. they made a lot of damage as it is. |
|
Rrishu Jain
|
It can. |
|
Double Dee
|
No, they gave them back didnt they? |
|
benvenaqui
 |
Britain already does, how many of the citizans of colonised countries are now living and working in Britain.
How much investment has Britain, not just the government but also industry, invested in those countries. How many jobs are lost in Britain every year, which are being created in previously colonised countries.
So Britain does compensate the colonised nations and will continue to do so, economically, socially and culturally. Tourism can be seen as a form of investment.
The question is does Britain provide enough compensation to those nations bit colonised. |
|
cityboy1
|
no chance we already take most of there population into this country |
|
Sap R
|
the people who colonised the world have also suffered many losses.they must be guilty for their past.and cooperate with these nations to develop peace. |
|
Matt S
|
i think that would be patronising really,
britain did bad things in these places but good aswell- like the rail roads and government infrastructure.
so no. |
|
|
|
|
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
