[Closed] The British Empire

TM.

Burning your wife alive, after you die.

If I want to stop that.
I'm doing wrong am I ?.

You may note.
Wife burning isn't anything to do with trade.

Or may be you won't.
🙄

That explains a lot.. It's prerequisite for any OU course to include a substantial amount of anti British retoric regardless of the subject at hand.

probably because academia can't hide the truth

Burning your wife alive, after you die.

If I want to stop that.
I'm doing wrong am I ?.

you think the british were in india to stop sati ? either way i hardly see that imposition of values was valid any more then than it is now.

No, it is GREED.

All humans have it.

that is like saying everyone has empathy it is just not true as this thread and others show.

probably because academia can't hide the truth

Or more to do with the fact academia is riddled with 60's inspired self hatred.

There is a selfish point of view - my hell is better for me than your hell...

"probably because academia can't hide the truth" - flippin heck! - was that a humour? All nations rewrite history to a greater or lesser extent!

.....that is like saying everyone has empathy it is just not true as this thread and others show.

Oh don't get me going on empathy, especially not if it involves discussing whether it can be taught.

Bloody Nursing Standard letters page seems to be awash with folk who think it can be taught in universities.

[img] [/img]

good result TM.. when you out and about..?

plenty of tribal societies are cooperative over wealth/resources

That I seriously doubt.

Or more to do with the fact academia is riddled with 60's inspired self hatred

oh right, i see that you're coming at this with a well reasoned point of view rather than just knee jerk reaction.

if you think that the modern historiography is all about self hatred, read niall ferguson. you'll love him.

"probably because academia can't hide the truth" - flippin heck! - was that a humour? All nations rewrite history to a greater or lesser extent!

are you under the impression that history is about one point of view ?

you'll be telling me that the victors always write the history next.

You anti capitalists.

You do realise that you appear to be the wettest losers in history.
For complaining about people who just happen to be better at making money, then you are.

Thing is, theres a flip-side to this coin.
A side from which you might pity them for not seeing things differently.

Or, you can just go on being wet and whimpering about capitalism and how bad it is.

So, go on then.
Stop your whinging.
Give us something better !.

Oh and btw, start another thread when you do.

yunki, soon brother real soon.

maybe tomorrow if you're around ?

"you'll be telling me that the victors always write the history next." 😀

[i]either way i hardly see that imposition of values was valid any more then than it is now. [/i]

Rriiiieeeeet !.

You really are a mess.

Why don't you come in from the left and get real.

To serve your agenda, you can try to convince the weak minded that it was imposition of values.

I'm proud to know that I'd happily save a life and to hell with ritual and tradition.
In this context.

And no, the British didn't go to India for that specific reason.
As I've already pointed out.
The British had no idea they'd be there when the whole business of Empire began.

I can just imagine you now, standing there watching that poor woman burn to death and muttering.
No, its OK, its what they do here in this part of the world.
And we must let it go on.

So, thats me.
I can't debate with an idiot who fails to distingiush between respecting other peoples beliefs and everyones right to life.

I really didn't want this to turn into such a bitter argument. My error, clearly.

The facts.

it's not my daughter, it's a friends. Her task was to conduct a survey (no THM, not read a textbook or research the internet, to ask some people....) about whether they think the Empire was a good or bad thing, and why. She asked me, because she knows i have opinions on many things. I was suitably interested to see what others thought.

She's not been asked to write an essay, or to answer the question once and for all. Reading between the lines, almost certainly the purpose of the task is partly historical, partly to develop question and answer skills, partly to show that complex questions like this don't get yes/no answers.

Another thought. Without the empire - if we'd all stayed at home, then britain would be far less multicultural and diverse. At extreme - it would be almost entirely caucasian. Is that not a massively positive outcome to the empire? Still not outweighing the bad aspects, i'll agree, but would britain be better with no immigrant population?

Genuine LOL is that one without evidence for our views?

Er, you can still have a dicussion without evidence.

I meant one where we put forward ideas and discuss them, hard facts not required but thought and ideas shared...

Standing even further away to observe....

🙄

TOJ - thanks for the clarification but my OP was very much tongue-in-cheek.

FWIW, I enjoyed The Guardian's review of Paxman's first Empire episode:

But now that the British empire is safely in its grave – for almost 50 years now — it's time we got a better grip on it, instead of being torn between Telegraph-esque sentimentality, snarling leftie loathing and the faint embarrassment (can that really have been Grandpa patrolling the Suez canal?) that is probably the response of most people. Fact is that, as usual, there was good and bad, heroism and sacrifice, greed and brutality – [b]much as there would have been if no British soldier's boot had touched the local soil.[/b]

There would also have been fewer canals or railways – [b]just as colonial Britain [/b]("Britain was Rome's Afghanistan," says naughty Cambridge professor Mary Beard) [b]plunged into post-imperial disorder after the legions went home but lived off its Roman roads for 1,400 years.[/b] The graffiti Paxo reported from British mandate (1919-48) Palestine says it all. " Tommy, go home" underneath which a British soldier – a Tommy in the jargon of the time — had scrawled: " I wish we ****ing could."

yes we could do that lets discuss things we dont have any evidence for ... I will let the physicist start that one 😉

You anti capitalists.

You do realise that you appear to be the wettest losers in history.
For complaining about people who just happen to be better at making money, then you are.

Thisis just your imposition that i want what they have* when what I actually want is wealth spread equitably throughout the world so that people do not die form starvation and preventable disease because some people are better at make money than they are.

It is like the politics of envy argument you [ i assume as usual you are just trolling] cannot see that some people are just not as greedy as you are. Personally I just think it is fairer that poor people dont starve than billionaiires have another yacht or purchase another island.

* self centred greedy capitalists are so arrogant that they cannot believe that some peole dont think like they do and really we are just jealous. It is a very weak and lazy argument. I suspect Molly will ike it after all there is no evidence to prove it 😀

THM we needed infrastructure to exploit the country, people and resources.. We did not do it for their benefit but for ours.
Of course some things were good ...what have the romans ever done for us....but they were done to enable us to "trade" or make more money than to improve the welfare of the indigenous population.

Tommy could have if we wished it to happen

I can't debate with an idiot who fails to distingiush between respecting other peoples beliefs and everyones right to life.

i rather suspect that the truth is that you can't debate with anyone that has a different point of view from yourself.

but that's ok with me, i'm ok with everyone's worldview, even yours, well so long as you don't force it on me then tell me it's for my own good.

JY thanks, I think I understood my own quote (and the subtle ironies in it) !!!!! But thanks for the clarification 😉

yes we could do that lets discuss things we dont have any evidence for

We could share thoughts instead of fight each other...?

We did not do it for their benefit but for ours.

However that sounds like a claim that could do with some evidence.

you can nevr take that for granted on STW 😉
i gave the evidence then the quote you used
we needed infrastructure to exploit the country, people and resources.

do you want me to prove that infrastructure helps trade?

JY - your confusing me again, go gently pls! The quote I used is saying the same thing but in a slightly more subtle manner. So not sure what you "feel" you need to prove.

Trade not too bad in A levels this morning by all accounts!

I's all about context of course; the British Empire was in and of its time;

The British were for a long time quite clear on an overall strategy for extending our cultural and ecconomic grip around the world, we weren't the only nation attempting to do so at the time either, that's not to excuse any acts that took place under Empire, but perhaps it is more useful to try an dispasionately understand the period of history that it took place during, we were competing with various other nations for access to the same resources and trade oportunities, around the globe, and nobody involved in this was whiter than white...

The British Empire used a combination of free trade, Military muscle, Slavery and Political engagment/imposition of governance to do this as each region as local circumstances dictated.

Those applying the Empire's "policies" overseas were not quite so encumbered by things like Human rights legislation or more modern humanitarian concepts, and of course global media coverage of attrocities were not a concern, without these things I'm sure there would still be even more "Out of sight, out of mind" Empire building policies/conflicts being undertaken by various nations today...

20/20 Hindsight and Current beliefs and ethics are wonderful when trying to assess past cultures impact, but a 21st century high horse doesn't give a proper appreciation of the prevailing circumstances.

There will have been plenty at the time who saw the part of Emire's role as "modernising" other reigions of the planet (in line with british culture and values), who will have genuinely believed they were improving the planet for all, Slavery, subjugation, conflict were just part of the (at that time acceptable) deal...

We don't presently live in such a faultless, enlightened age as some seem to believe; yes some lessons have been learned from our own histories, but not universally and I think its fair to say that current British culture and living standards are built,to a certain extent on various forms of subjugation carried out overseas. We no longer have an Empire but we do excercise international influence both positive and negative, depending on your perspective...

Unfortunatley, the teaching of the history of the Empire, is second only to the teaching of the history of the First World War in replacement of fact and 'big picture' analysis with lying, lefty, nauseating, 60's pacifist hand wringing, guilt ridden, simplistic, sentimental crap.

You really a charming example of humanitarianism at work...hope you never end up in slavery having someone shit in your mouth as punishment ...i would hate to think you would turn into a hand wringing lefty who objected if it happened to you.
You really are an amoral swivel eyed loon at times.

who will have genuinely believed they were improving the planet for all

they used to think child abuse never happened and you could not rape your wife. I could talk about the times as well here but it was wrong.
they used to think child labour was ok but it is not
Etc

It is true that it is fraught with difficulties view their times and cultures by our own standards . I do believe that certain things are always wrong though at times they may have been acceptable
slavery, spousal rape for example.

I do believe that certain things are always wrong though

But you're viewing them through the eyes of a 21st century first world citizen from a judeo-christian background

Had you lived several hundered years ago, or in a different society today, then your viewpoint would more likley than not be different.

Things aren't 'fundementally' wrong, its just the way that society (if there is such a thing) see's them.

It is always a good idea to approach complex wide-ranging historical debates with as small minded an attitiude as possible.

It is not a view without some merit* but you are not the person I would choose to discuss it with.

* some morals may be of the time but some are always wrong

Unfortunatley, the teaching of the history of the Empire, is second only to the teaching of the history of the First World War in replacement of fact and 'big picture' analysis with lying, lefty, nauseating, 60's pacifist hand wringing, guilt ridden, simplistic, sentimental crap.

that sounds like the analysis of someone who has studied neither subject in the last 10 years

trailmonkey - when schoolteachers stop using episodes of Blackadder and' oh what a lovely war' as source material, then you may have a point 😉

replacement of fact and 'big picture' analysis with lying

Wow, that's a pretty serious accusation. Got any examples?

do you want me to prove that infrastructure helps trade?

Well it's obvious, as you know, so no. Is there any direct evidence that no infrastructure was ever created with the knowledge of any benefit to the natives?

its true that they did no think they were bad like some/most of us do , However they were wrong.

Junkyard, are you registered as partially sighted? It must be quite difficult only being able to see black and white. It's a bit daft to try to sum up 300 years of a variety of people and policies across half the world as 'bad', imo.

I think its fair to say that current British culture and living standards are built,to a certain extent on various forms of subjugation carried out overseas

Interesting. I presume you mean that we got the natives to make or grow things for us? A lot of people would say that's not a one-way street. By providing a market and infrastructure you could be helping local industry. Of course if they didn't provide fair wages and conditions it would not have been a good situation, but is it better than subsistence living in the forest for instance?

It's a bit daft to try to sum up 300 years of a variety of people and policies across half the world as 'bad', imo.

but it's not though is it ? the bad bits were obviously bad and the good bits were a) contestable, b) the result of imposition c) largely only good if distilled through a certain worldview.

i think it's perfectly reasonable to sum the whole thing up and come up with a zero or positive result.

the good bits were a) contestable, b) the result of imposition c) largely only good if distilled through a certain worldview

I'd like more information and some examples of that.

Wow, that's a pretty serious accusation. Got any examples?

Sure - one of the common lies is repeated on this very thread, the contention that the British Empire invented concentration camps, in South Africa.

The first modern concentration camps were set up not in south africa, but in colonial Cuba, in 1895. In an effort to put an end to a series of insurgencies, imperial Spain began to prepare a policy of reconcentratión, intended to remove the Cuban peasants from their land and 'reconcentrate' them in camps, thereby depriving the insurgents of food, shelter and support.

By 1900, the Spanish term reconcentratión had already been translated into English, and was used to describe a similar British project, initiated for similar reasons, during the Boer War in South Africa.

Good enough for you?

Junkyard, are you registered as partially sighted? It must be quite difficult only being able to see black and white. It's a bit daft to try to sum up 300 years of a variety of people and policies across half the world as 'bad', imo.

FWIW not all morals are set in stone but IMHO slavery and spousal rape are always wrong ,Anyone who argues otherwise is wrong. perhaps you could explain why these might be OK in some time frame now or in the future?

Not all morals are black and white but some are. The nazis/genocidal fascists are always wrong as well if that helps.

* asking questions when you probably dont mean what you type

I'd like more information and some examples of that.

hang on a minute, i've been waiting 3 hours for you to answer to the last facts i gave you concerning the results of free trade.

Sure - one of the common lies is repeated on this very thread, the contention that the British Empire invented concentration camps, in South Africa.

Actually by us in New Zealand,as we stole the land and moved the locals into camps. Colonialism is bad n'kay? Any benefits for the locals are side effects of us making it easier for us to steal their natural resources/put down rebellions.

FWIW not all morals are set in stone but IMHO slavery and spousal rape are always wrong ,Anyone who argues otherwise is wrong. perhaps you could explain why these might be OK in some time frame now or in the future?

Wtf you on about?

I've not said slavery and spousal rape were good
They were not created by the British Empire
Slavery was in fact abolished by the British Empire earlier than most places (afaik, please correct me)

So what are you talking about?

TM - apologies, I missed your post about trade.

on top of which, who do you think might have actually benefited from exports from the colonies, british investors or the average man in sarawak ?

I don't know. I am not saying that trade WAS good for everyone, I am posing the question. Undoubtedly there were (and still are) gross abuses of economic power, but I want to know if OVERALL the Empire brought economic benefits to the countries being colonised.

For example - a lot of countries employ a lot of people growing tea. Would that have happened if we hadn't spread the drink around the world? Did we in fact do that?

Sure - one of the common lies is repeated on this very thread, the contention that the British Empire invented concentration camps, in South Africa.

Is that a lie or a mistake? There is a difference.

And in any case, I don't think anyone feels particularly guilty about inventing them, so it's moot. I suspect more people feel guilty about using them, which is not under debate is it?

I don't think the British Empire did anything that any previous Empire didn't - with the exception that the British Empire banned slavery (a practice so old it pre-dates sharpening the sticks we used to hit each other with) within itself and then "ended"* it by enforcing the ban with a bloody big fleet.

(I wasn't in the British Empire so deserve no credit or shame.)

So just for the exercise, what massive shift in the entire world conciousness (good or bad) did any other Empire leave behind?

*Of course, slavery on a much smaller scale does still go on.

Are you now accepting that some morals are black and white or are you still accusing only me and my partial sightedness of this?
ect?

I've not said slavery and spousal rape were good

It must be quite difficult only being able to see black and white.

but I want to know if OVERALL the Empire brought economic benefits to the countries being colonised.

JY. I think you are slightly missing the point. Nobody is saying that slavery is a good thing.
The fact remains at certain times during history whole societies did not see anything wrong with it & thought it was completely justified. That we now don't think that is arguably evidence of moral progress. You could conceivably argue that this progress was made under the auspices of the British Empire... (though not denying that said empire was originally responsible for developing slavery on an industrial scale) I think you are confusing a contemporary moral relativism with an ability not to be anachronistic.

ohh.. missed this.

reckon that the british empire has got to have been one of the better empires that have existed.

if it wasn't for the BE then germany vod hav von ze war.