Britain should not be apologetic about it's history.

Pro: "the Con is implying that I do not believe minorities are part of the British nation." My apologies for misinterpreting. I inferred this from Pro's claim that Britain as a nation "has become a servile, sycophantic minority pleaser." Since minorities comprise a large part of the British populace, I don't really understand how the nation as a whole can be described in this way. Pro concedes that pride is not always positive and equates positive aspects of pride with self-respect. I think there is a clear distinction here. As an individual I can evaluate mistakes I have made and still respect myself. This doesn't mean I am proud of my mistakes and I think apologising when one is in the wrong is likely to enhance one's respect for oneself, as well as the respect one receives from others. I will be giving ample evidence of the British Empire's less positive acts towards the end of the round. In response to my request for an example of the British nation being "servile and sycophantic" towards minorities, Pro instead offers an example of our Prime Minster supposedly demonstrating such behaviour towards another nation (India is clearly not a minority, there are a lot more Indians in the world than Brits). Pro provides no source for his quote of Cameron's "humility" or of his claims about the response of other international diplomats. I believe that any deference towards the Indian government and people on the part of Cameron has nothing to do with past British injustices and everything to do with current geo-politics. Pakistan was also part of the British Indian Empire but Cameron paid little deference to Pakistan during his recent visit. http://www.thehindu.com... In trying to buddy up with India and it's booming economy, Cameron was happy to sl@g off their enemy Pakistan to the extent that his effigy was burnt on the streets of Islamabad and important Intelligence meetings have been cancelled. Sound like servility to you? ____ Pro: "I would like to point out that not one politican in any governing body within the UK ... has even a shred of the backbone that Winston Churchill had." Pro provides no basis for this claim which, in any case, seems irrelevant to his argument. ___ Pro: "if you look at the sylabus for a child in Junior high, you will cover event's like the Battle of Hasting's and local history. I was under the impression that what is important, is teaching children about more contemptorary history such as the World War's, Napoleon and British empire in India. All which have a strong relation to our current situation, and show Britain at it's best." We don't have Junior high in England and it would be great to see some evidence that the syllabus is the way my opponent claims it is. When I work in secondary schools I see literature on the walls concerning World War II. My daughter is in Infant school and has learnt about recent history such as the American Civil Rights movement as well as older stuff like Guy Fawkes. I don't see what is "contemporary" about the Napoleonic wars and its clear that my opponent and I disagree on whether the Raj shows "Britain at it's best". Pro: "I am training to become a history teacher." I hope you teach your students a balanced view of history, as well as appropriate use of apostrophes. ____ Despite declaring that he "will bear the burden of evidense in this debate", my opponent provides no corroborating evidence for any of his claims about the positive impacts of British colonialism. Although Pro claimed he would prove that "the pro's outweigh the con's", he has merely listed pros without weighing them against cons at all. I'll provide some cons of British rule in India and my opponent can do some weighing up of his pros against these next round. In the uprising of 1857, there were atrocities on both sides but while the massacres of British forces at Cawnpore and of 120 women and children at Bibighar was widely reported, http://en.wikipedia.org... the extent of the brutal suppression of the Indian populace over the decade that followed was not so well publicised. http://www.guardian.co.uk... Randeep Ramesh is one historian arguing that almost 10 million Indians were exterminated in the following years in a genocide far surpassing the Nazi holocaust. "During the British Raj, India experienced some of the worst famines ever recorded, including the Great Famine of 1876ï¿½€"78, in which 6.1 million to 10.3 million people died and the Indian famine of 1899ï¿½€"1900, in which 1.25 to 10 million people died. Recent research, including work by Mike Davis and Amartya Sen, attribute most of the effects of these famines to British policy in India." http://en.wikipedia.org... I eagerly await my opponent's assessment of the positive impacts of the African slave trade. With the limited characters available, I'll try to briefly address Ireland. John Mitchel's The Last Conquest of Ireland offers perhaps the clearest description of the Irish Potato famine "the English created the famine... a million and half men, women and children were carefully, prudently and peacefully slain by the English government. They died of hunger in the midst of abundance which their own hands created" http://www.independent.co.uk... http://en.wikipedia.org... British division of Ireland (like India and Pakistan) intensified religious conflict to an incendiary level. Different groups who had previously lived alongside each other in peace engaged in bitter decade long feuds. I'm sure my opponent needs no source to clarify the extent of problems caused by religious and political separatism in his native Northern Ireland. Out of characters. Over to Pro.