What is your countries equivalent of the Chinese century of humiliation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation
>>56275602
Its 2016
A thousand years of subjugation
We were only oppressed by those ebul Magyars ;_;
>>56275602
2008-onward
same as yours obviously
2008- present day
>>56275602
from 1683 to 1923, we didn't get fucked as hard but it was still pretty bad
>>56275602
1860-1865, 1974-1980, and 2001-present
>>56275602
Basically from 1500 onward.
We haven't had a century of humiliation but I have identified a British century of decline.
1876 - Queen Victoria becomes Empress of India.
1976 - Callaghan's Labour government are forced to apply for a bailout from the IMF
This Century of Decline is my own observation, I haven't seen it in any history books, but I think it fits quite well. 1876 was the height of the British Empire, from that point for the rest of that century there was relative economic decline compared to Germany and the US.
1976 was probably the worst it ever got for the UK. Worse than 1940 in terms of power and economy. You can argue that 1979 was just as bad or worse (winter of discontent), but 1976 was pretty damn bad. That IMF loan is quite symbolic.
Britain then stopped declining after the late 1970s
>>56275602
1066
:/
>>56275940
>Obama doesn't belong in muh WHITE house, dude!
>>56277327
Measuring relative to the whole world doesn't make much sense. The USA's % world GDP decline from the 70s to the 90s, but the USA actually became MORE powerful because it became the sole superpower. That shows your measure is simplistic and flawed.
It is more sensible to measure a country against its competitors, which for the UK is the advanced economies. Furthermore decline/ascendancy in power is not only about GDP, but other factors military and cultural. When you take everything into account it's clear the UK stopped declining after the 70s. If you don't think so, I have to question how much you know about UK history or in general
1750's/1945
>>56277635
Except for the fact the Russians went from 15% to 4%????
>muh soft power
Nice subjective measurement.
The UK has stopped its decline, but it hasn't come back by any means relative to the world.
Being less and less economically relevant is never a good thing for the autists who jerk off to muh power muh relevance!
If the UK vanished tomorrow not much would really happen to the world after a few years. If America, China, or the EU vanished the world would enter a great depression and WW3 would likely begin.
>>56277836
who cares
1772 - present day
19th century.
>>56277836
>Except for the fact the Russians went from 15% to 4%????
And? I was using your own logic, the same you applied to the UK's situation. I said the UK stopped declining and you posted that table. But using your logic, the USA declined in power while the USSR collapsed. That is simplistic and plain wrong.
>muh soft power
Where did I mention soft power?
>The UK has stopped its decline
So you agree with what I said in my post >>56276919. I wonder why you're arguing with me then.
>but it hasn't come back by any means relative to the world.
It has in several ways.
In the late 70s the UK was 6th in world GDP rankings, then fell to 7th (behind Italy!), but it has increased to 5th today and is even predicted to reach 4th.
In military terms the UK has improved since the 70's in an important way as it's establishing a greater global military reach. The end of the British Empire was signified to many people by Britain's withdrawal from "East of Suez", but Britain has now returned East of Suez with a military presence and bases. General power projection is becoming better than it was since before the 70s
Another important development is the British position relative to Europe. In pure per capita terms the UK has enjoyed better growth than its main European competitors since the 1970s, see graph. In absolute terms the UK is getting close to overtaking Germany to become Europe's largest economy in nominal terms. This is something that hasn't happened for a century in peace time. Being the largest European economy is a big deal as you attract more business and investment from outside Europe.
>>56277836
>Except for the fact the Russians went from 15% to 4%????
And there are better ways to measure that than the autismo chart you posted
I can't really think of a long term period. I'm not doubting we've had our share of embarrassments:
>War of 1812
>Mistreatment of Native Americans
>Federal government bending over to appease slave owners in the 30 years before the civil war
>Southern half of country seceding because they lost 1 election
>Accomplishing no major reconstruction of post-war South, continuing Southern "huritage" for another century
>Not evacuating freed blacks to Liberia
>Occupation of Cuba and Philippines
>Iroquois Theater fire
>1930's
>That time Canadian soldiers "accidentally" gunned-down 500 US soldiers, thinking they were Japs
>Communist scare of the '50s
>Vietnam
>MLK riots
>Jimmy Carter
>Rodney King riots
>get 9/11ed by former allies
>Invade Iraq so Bush could win reelection
>2008 recession
But no "century" of humiliation yet, probably soon in future tho
19th century
1580 to 1st of December 1640.
>24 year old King with no heir dies fighting moors
>Spain takes the chance and rules Portugal
>We have to fight with Spain against oldest ally
>Shit is starting to become unbearable
>Fuck the Spanish King
>Revolution
>Restoration of Independence
>Can't pay debts
>>56279027
>We have to fight with Spain against oldest ally
What war was this?
>>56280091
>>56279027
>What war was this?
Windmills
>>56280091
Anglo-Spanish War (1585–1604)
We didn't play a major role in it but we were tied to Spain.
>>56280369
Thanks I found it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Spanish_War_(1585%E2%80%931604)
Quite strange. Portugal on the enemy's side and France fighting on our side. You can tell from the belligerents this was Spain at the height of its powers.
>>56275602
1820 - 1920
>>56278583
No the logic is that the difference between the Soviet economy and American economy was far less than it is now after it fell apart. That means RELATIVE speaking the US became stronger.
Even though there's now 10 more midgets, and we have shrunk, we're now 6 times bigger than the nearest developed competitor, therefore we are stronger economically in a relative sense than we were in 1990.
The UK is different because she is far closer in midgetness to the other midgets. Therefore your relative decline has been proportionally much worse than America's.
I can't believe your brain can't grasp that concept.
1867-present day
>>56281656
>we're now 6 times bigger than the nearest developed competitor, therefore we are stronger economically in a relative sense than we were in 1990.
Nice try but your competition isn't our competition. The US is competing directly with China, you can't ignore the Chinese in a discussion of US relative economic power. In overall terms it is clear that the US was much more powerful in 1990 than it is today. Proof of that in a single event: Obama's "red line" that Assad crossed with no consequences.
>Therefore your relative decline has been proportionally much worse than America's.
But the UK hasn't been in relative decline since the 70s. You ignored the last chart I posted so here's another. Since the end of my "century of decline" the UK has improved against all major developed countries.
It has been 23 years since a Canadian team has won the Stanley cup. I want it to end.
