MP Heather Wheeler sparks Twitter backlash with British Empire post

[Yvaelle]

This only works if you strategically avoid including India.

I used the term "Anglosphere" intentionally, English is not the native language of India: only 0.01% of Indians learn English as their native tongue - and that's probably all expatriate children.

There has always been a difference between the Anglosphere and the British Empire, at the height of the Empire - they also ruled half of the Middle-East and half of Africa - but that doesn't make them part of the Anglosphere.

[Deleted]

I used the term "Anglosphere" intentionally, English is not the native language of India: only 0.01% of Indians learn English as their native tongue - and that's probably all expatriate children.

There has always been a difference between the Anglosphere and the British Empire, at the height of the Empire - they also ruled half of the Middle-East and half of Africa - but that doesn't make them part of the Anglosphere.

yeah anglosphere to me has always meant UK, Ireland, Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand, very different to all the colonies of the empire

[Beazy]

Not entirely sure how a war in which Britain attained all its objectives and the US achieved none, as well as the US suffering greater losses than Britain, goes down as a victory for the US.

Generally not achieving your objectives and suffering more goes down as a loss, or draw at best.

What objectives did they achieve? Last time I checked no borders changed at the end of the war in 1815 or 16, and the English went home with no land holdings.

Those were the objectives?

[Deleted]

I used the term "Anglosphere" intentionally, English is not the native language of India: only 0.01% of Indians learn English as their native tongue - and that's probably all expatriate children.

There has always been a difference between the Anglosphere and the British Empire, at the height of the Empire - they also ruled half of the Middle-East and half of Africa - but that doesn't make them part of the Anglosphere.

But fair.

[Repefe]

I don't see the problem with it.

I don't think it's in poor taste to point out that the Anglosphere more-or-less overlaps the half-billion richest people on Earth, with the ability to support professional athletes, professional coaches and support teams for them, all the best equipment and training that money can buy, etc.

It shouldn't be taboo to point out that we kick ass at the Olympics, but it's also perfectly explainable given our capabilities. It's also not in poor taste to point out that - accounting for our advantages - we are not particularly exceptional for non-anglosphere countries, with comparable levels of development, per capita.

It would be in poor taste if it implied that all former inhabitants of the British Empire were genetically superior, by virtue of tea and crumpets and silent u's, to everyone else: but it doesn't do that. We do have a superpower though, and it's called money.

It's more like ... UK is a tiny island that used to usurp, control and take advantage of masses of underdeveloped countries. Saying, haha, olympics, ... let's forget about all the ppl we killed in the past (10+ millions) and be friends again and let's sign some trade deals as well while we are at it, haha, UK empire ftw, is sort of a bad taste, but you know ... in the spirit of olympic, haha. Twitter ftw.

[Kalis]

What objectives did they achieve? Last time I checked no borders changed at the end of the war in 1815 or 16, and the English went home with no land holdings.

Those were the objectives?

The US declared war, Britain was fighting a defensive war, so maintaining the pre war status quo is a valid definition of a victory for the defender, but not possible to claim for the aggressor.

The best that the US could have hoped to argue for was a draw, but that sort of ignores the fact they failed in their intended objectives.

However you look at it, Britain did not lose, so for someone to claim a US victory is clearly wrong and just rewriting history.

[Mad_Murdock]

However you look at it, Britain did not lose, so for someone to claim a US victory is clearly wrong and just rewriting history.

Isn't revisionist history a thing? Do you have some type of underlying bias against re-writting history. I think you should open your heart and mind to the Alternate Universe and accept some history reads a lot better when you re-write it. Sometimes the original writers sucked and they need to be replaced with cooler, trendy writers, who have the pulse on what's hip

[Jotaux]

I used the term "Anglosphere" intentionally, English is not the native language of India: only 0.01% of Indians learn English as their native tongue - and that's probably all expatriate children.

There has always been a difference between the Anglosphere and the British Empire, at the height of the Empire - they also ruled half of the Middle-East and half of Africa - but that doesn't make them part of the Anglosphere.

In India theres a large push for people to speak hindi and punjabi because the majority speak english. Like if you go into a bank there will be signs promoting punjabi but the bank tellers all greet you in english.

[jimboa24]

The US declared war, Britain was fighting a defensive war, so maintaining the pre war status quo is a valid definition of a victory for the defender, but not possible to claim for the aggressor.

The best that the US could have hoped to argue for was a draw, but that sort of ignores the fact they failed in their intended objectives.

However you look at it, Britain did not lose, so for someone to claim a US victory is clearly wrong and just rewriting history.

The biggest reason the war of 1812 is seen as a U.S. victory is yes, while you did burn D.C., we rallied and kicked you back out of our country. At the time, we were still seen as the inferior army, so defeating what was at the time the greatest army in the world for a second time was in and of itself a major victory.

And don't forget the battle of New Orleans, the last great battle of the war. To say that the odds were stacked HEAVILY against the American defenders is a massive understatement. To put it quite bluntly, there is no way Britain should have lost the battle and New Orleans should have been an ash heap, and yet lose they did.

And don't forget the Battle of Baltimore, where we got the National Anthem from. Yeah, we kicked some serious, major British ass in Baltimore.

Look, you can claim that the war of 1812 was a British victory all you want, but that's not really the truth; in fact to claim it as a British victory is historical revisionism in and of itself. The closest thing you can call it to a victory is a pyrrhic victory. And in truth, losing an attempt to retake your lost colonies for a second time was a political and a diplomatic disaster for your nation. After all...you were supposed to be the greatest and most powerful country in the world, and you lost to a (in your view) ragtag bunch of farmers and fishermen. Twice.

[Beazy]

The US declared war, Britain was fighting a defensive war, so maintaining the pre war status quo is a valid definition of a victory for the defender, but not possible to claim for the aggressor.

The best that the US could have hoped to argue for was a draw, but that sort of ignores the fact they failed in their intended objectives.

However you look at it, Britain did not lose, so for someone to claim a US victory is clearly wrong and just rewriting history.

We did declare war. And I think, it was the first war the US ever declared.

The primary objective of the English were to create a buffer state between CA and US. Did not happen. Even after Napoleon was defeated, the English sent their best vets to best the US and failed. By 1814, the US learned how to mobilize and take orders. The only thing the English accomplished in the war of 1812, was teaching America how to become the world military power we are today.

It absolutely is a Victory, because a loss would have meant conceding to British peace demands (northern buffer state, control of the great lakes, etc). In the end, the English realized it wasnt worth it, the traders in Europe needed trade re opened with the US and the English and French had just become best buds.

The war of 1812 wasnt just a victory for the US, it was a victory for all civilized western life on earth.

[TrumpIsPresident]

What am I missing here?

But the post - entitled "Empire Goes For Gold" - has been labelled "deeply offensive to so many people and their ancestors" by Labour MP for Tottenham David Lammy, while others have called it "insensitive and ignorant".

[Kalis]

The biggest reason the war of 1812 is seen as a U.S. victory is yes, while you did burn D.C., we rallied and kicked you back out of our country. At the time, we were still seen as the inferior army, so defeating what was at the time the greatest army in the world for a second time was in and of itself a major victory.

And don't forget the battle of New Orleans, the last great battle of the war. To say that the odds were stacked HEAVILY against the American defenders is a massive understatement. To put it quite bluntly, there is no way Britain should have lost the battle and New Orleans should have been an ash heap, and yet lose they did.

And don't forget the Battle of Baltimore, where we got the National Anthem from. Yeah, we kicked some serious, major British ass in Baltimore.

Look, you can claim that the war of 1812 was a British victory all you want, but that's not really the truth; in fact to claim it as a British victory is historical revisionism in and of itself. The closest thing you can call it to a victory is a pyrrhic victory. And in truth, losing an attempt to retake your lost colonies for a second time was a political and a diplomatic disaster for your nation. After all...you were supposed to be the greatest and most powerful country in the world, and you lost to a (in your view) ragtag bunch of farmers and fishermen. Twice.

We did declare war. And I think, it was the first war the US ever declared.

The primary objective of the English were to create a buffer state between CA and US. Did not happen. Even after Napoleon was defeated, the English sent their best vets to best the US and failed. By 1814, the US learned how to mobilize and take orders. The only thing the English accomplished in the war of 1812, was teaching America how to become the world military power we are today.

It absolutely is a Victory, because a loss would have meant conceding to British peace demands (northern buffer state, control of the great lakes, etc). In the end, the English realized it wasnt worth it, the traders in Europe needed trade re opened with the US and the English and French had just become best buds.

The war of 1812 wasnt just a victory for the US, it was a victory for all civilized western life on earth.

So even though the US declared war, failed in any of their intended objectives and by any definition of victory did not win...they still won? Okay...

[Beazy]

So even though the US declared war, failed in any of their intended objectives and by any definition of victory did not win...they still won? Okay...

Which objectives did the US fail at?

Trade was re opened with Europe and France, the English stopped siezing our ships and soldiers, and the blockade was lifted. Pretty much every reason we declared war was rectified in the treaty. The US got exactly what we wanted.

You dont think the war of 1812 was intended to invade England and usurp the King do you? That's a theory I've never heard before.

[jimboa24]

So even though the US declared war, failed in any of their intended objectives and by any definition of victory did not win...they still won? Okay...

Taking some of Canada for ourselves was only one of four objectives. We achieved all three other objectives, which Beazy already went over. So yeah...we got three out of four objectives, I'd call that a victory.

[Kalis]

Which objectives did the US fail at?

Trade was re opened with Europe and France, the English stopped siezing our ships and soldiers, and the blockade was lifted. Pretty much every reason we declared war was rectified in the treaty. The US got exactly what we wanted.

The trade restrictions had been repealed without anyone in Britain even knowing they were at war, so how exactly did the war end the trade blockade?

Press ganging stopped due to Napoleon losing, which was nothing to do with the war in the Americas.

And the US failed to capture British territories, which had been their intent.

You dont think the war of 1812 was intended to invade England and usurp the King do you? That's a theory I've never heard before.

What the fuck are you on about? Where did I even infer that the US intended to invade England? Quote where I alluded to that.

[breadisfunny]

I'm sure the USA would obliterate the Olympics if every state had a team. lol

i don't see Mississippi winning any medals in the Olympics.

[Kalis]

Taking some of Canada for ourselves was only one of four objectives. We achieved all three other objectives, which Beazy already went over. So yeah...we got three out of four objectives, I'd call that a victory.

You are claiming objectives that would have come about even had war not been declared, as somehow a result of the war? How does that work exactly?

Britain was at war with Napoleon, the things that the US were complaining about were due to that war and when Britain stopped being at war with Napoleon they ended, their ending had nothing to do with the US.

You do realise that you are claiming victory for Britain defeating Napoleon, don't you?

[Beazy]

The trade restrictions had been repealed without anyone in Britain even knowing they were at war, so how exactly did the war end the trade blockade?

And 6 weeks later, when the declaration of war reached London, they resumed. . . . . There was no quick communication then, you know that.... The war also ended before the English were stomped in N.O.. But since the internet didnt exist back then, it took a while for the south and the red coats to get the memo.

[Kalis]

And 6 weeks later, when the declaration of war reached London, they resumed. . . . . There was no quick communication then, you know that.... The war also ended before the English were stomped in N.O.. But since the internet didnt exist back then, it took a while for the south and the red coats to get the memo.

1. Britain put a blockade in place
2. Britain lifted the blockade
3. US declared war
4. Britain put another blockade in place

Explain in depth how 3 led to 2, it should be interesting.

[jimboa24]

You are claiming objectives that would have come about even had war not been declared, as somehow a result of the war? How does that work exactly?

Britain was at war with Napoleon, the things that the US were complaining about were due to that war and when Britain stopped being at war with Napoleon they ended, their ending had nothing to do with the US.

You do realise that you are claiming victory for Britain defeating Napoleon, don't you?

Impressment was a long tradition of the Royal Navy. No, they had no intention of stopping until we made it one of our four main grievances of the war of 1812. You do realize that the war ended with another treaty, yeah? And that treaty ceded many things to the U.S., including lifting the trade restrictions, which Britain would have been happy to keep up regardless of winning the Napoleonic wars or not, Britain giving up their attempts at establishing a buffer zone between Canada and the U.S., ceasing impressment, which again, they had no reason to give up considering how well impressment had worked for them in North America.

Point being, calling the war of 1812 a British victory is laughable, as it sure as shit could not be seen as anything but a loss, in the very least of men and finances. Britain gained nothing; absolutely nothing. We got Britain's boot off of our necks. We also made it clear to Britain that we would never be taken back into the empire, and that we were to be left the fuck alone. Those alone would make the war worth it.