Why does the United Kingdom possess the most glorious and influential history in all of man's time in the cosmos...

Wouldn't surprise, I was quite literally reading an article the other day in a once respected periodical purporting that "the cat in the hat" is racist.

This, very much this

how were you triggered

how was I?

I suppose I was dismayed by it, being that it's sort of an uncalled for attack upon nobleness

How do you do, fellow romans!

How do you do, fellow Egyptians!

>island dwellers - can't be conquered
>european countries constantly wage war against each other, while you chill in the sea
>still geographically close enough to europe to benefit from culture and influence european politics
>build best boats because water all around you
>use boats to conquer backwards countries with superior technology
>get money fuck bitches
fucking OP starting location desu

explain the Irish then?

I think perhaps we no longer foster this level of public art, society doesn't reward dedication and hard work, the slip shod half assed method gets similar results and recognition

It only seems more glorious because they had electricity, guns and nuclear bombs. A Roman Empire with the same tools would probably look more glorious and otherwordly

Because the point of the modern state is to facilitate the sale of cheaply made plastic trinkets, not enoble the spirit. The idea of peoples and nations is actually offensive to them, in any event.

Or maybe there is just no one paying exactly for it. It's not like artists of the past were all strict patriots, I would say that most of them were closer to the concept of Art rather than the concept of Society.
Also they were expected to create glorious, altisonant art because this is what their rulers wanted. With this I don't mean that no artist has been sincere in what they have produced under these monarchies and empires, rather that they had no choice anyway. It's not like Montaigne could write Baudelaire's poems without getting censored and ostracized.

90% bogs and marshes and there was a bigger island next to them

>they were expected to create glorious, altisonant art because this is what their rulers wanted
Why is this a bad thing?

If your friend was a brilliant painter artist but wanted to do nothing but make portraits of nasty vaj, would you enable him?

Depending on your outlook on those monarchies, giving them that stunning art may have been either incredibly moral or extremely immoral. That wasn't my point anyway.
I was responding to this post
>I think perhaps we no longer foster this level of public art, society doesn't reward dedication and hard work, the slip shod half assed method gets similar results and recognition
and I was just explaining that the glory of ancient Art was merely an attribute picked by those mecenates (who were all part of the aristocratic class, then the bourgeoisie) to validate the institutions they were part of. If such art is not produced anymore, it's only due to the fact that Art is now in the hands of the free market.
This does not mean that gret art can't be produced anymore, the big change will be in how much recognition it will get.

This is so retarded
Dank, cold island off what has historically been the less civilized side of Europe.

I supposed this revisionism bears testament to the superiority of the Anglo, if the abos counted among their number - sooo many of humanities greatest minds and in recent years had the largest empire in human history, jared diamond reading mouth breathers would talk about how fortunate they were to be born on the "Lucky geographical position" of Tasmania.

Egyptians may have looked like that, doubtful but possible.
Romans definitely didn't look like this.

>island dwellers - can't be conquered
What is the history of Sicily?
>still geographically close enough to europe to benefit from culture and influence european politics
KEK! the boot is on the other foot there my lad. Europe would still be catholic theologians writing with feathers about arab commentaries on the greeks were it not for the Brits. This literally reads like an afrocentrist talking about how the blackamoors gave white cavemen mathematics and astrology and teached us how to bathe.
It must hurt, the two greatest minds Europe has ever produced (Newton and Maxwell) being British, with the third being a Jew.
>use boats to conquer backwards countries with superior technology
That's not fair lad, Napoleonic France wasn't that backwards - only about 20 or so years behind Britain really.

Island location. The end.

>it has often been said that God must be an Englishman
Is he inbred with bad teeth and balding?

The perfect mixture of Germanic, Celtic and Frankish genes.

>Germanic and Frankish genes.
Why did you say Germanic twice?

>luck

There is no such thing as "luck" in history. You're probably one of those people who think that the Spanish Armada was destroyed because of "unlucky weather".

North Germanic and Southern Germanic.

Luck is a good umbrella term for everything that influences human history and was completely out of man's control. A storm that devastates the mongol invasion fleets should be considered incredibly lucky for Japan, as it was a chance event that neither the mongols or Japan could decide.

Luck implies arbitrary chance.

Well you could just say that all events in human history is not chance but simply the certain way in which particles interacted with other particles.
I prefer a more romantic view.

Incredible luck

For exemple, look at the US Revolution:
Britain loses a war to France in 1783, and what happens after that?
It spawns a superpower (America) that makes English language replace French as the international language and tell the entire world that Britain is based while France is shit

Even when they lose, Brits win

>Lose your most promising colonies because they conspire with the truly duplicitous french
>Incredible luck

If the US revolution never happened
>the British colonies in what is now the USA would done at-least as well but remained loyal to the crown, you need only look at Australia, Canada or NZ to see essentially the same per capita results.
>English would become even more dominant as an international language
>Napoleon would have stood even less of a chance, he probably would have found a way to surrender to the UK a third time
>WWI and WWII, if they ever happened would have lasted months at most, with the British Empire (US included) being too dominant.

The US Revolution was nothing more than an a schism between Brits. Of-course the US and UK were quick to ally, they were family.

Stay mad frenchcucks

See

The industrial revolution and a lust for wealth and power.

That, and a prudish society that's not interested in sex.

God was on their side.

>french

except you were literally conquered twice, first by vikings. you pushed them back, then their successors the normans came and took over permanently.

naturally, we're paragons of nobleness and benevolence

the Normans became English though

much like the Chinese, we let them in, but they never get out :)

The Irish were also conquered by the normans, practically every single modern country on the planet has been invaded and have their customs merge with their invaders, todays modern day Irish and British culture are a result of cultural mixing, like any other culture on the planet.