It seems today that the British empre is regarded as something to be ashamed about: a dark blot on the history of our country.
However the empire did a lot of work for good

India: before the British came this was a large number of warring states, which were in a situation similair to that of medieval EUrope - by 1947 India was a modern powerhouse, a united country with modern infrastructure and technology. Practises such as widow burning and thuggery had been removed and the country could now become a world player - since 47 however the country has decayed due to bad government which rested too much one on family.

SOuth Africa: certainly not thought as a success story and I will admit treatment of many In south africa was appaling however the British were opposed to slavery and the aparteid regime and I would like people to stop blaming these on the British: it was the dutch of the traansvall who were primarily resposible for the way things turned out this century.

Australia and Canada: while what happened to natives in these countries is not fantastic two modern nations have been established in what was for the most barren land, these nations are democratic and rich and were able to play a significant and vital roles in the two world wars: just like the US.
The british empire was a good thing and I think it unfortuante that it had be given up, maybe the world what not be quite so bad if hadn't

(and yes I am mad but I actually believe most oif this crap)

So do I. Although the royalty of Britain was origonaly Scottish so it should be the Scottish Empire

The vital ingredient in the British People are their Norse masters.... In fact, the Normans were Vikings who obtained "Normandy" from Paris in return for the pledge not to sack the city. It seems the French could not defend their own country even 1,500 years ago, LOL....

So years later, in 1066... guess who invaded and transformed England.... :lol:

Anyway, the Vikings (AKA the British) did have a magnificent Empire...
http://www.civfanatics.com/uploads/america1s.jpg

Coming from an ex-British colonial territory (M'sia and S'pore), I only have this to say - things have gotten about ten thousand times better since independence from the British.
The British didn't expand and build their empire out of a sense of good wishing for the peoples of the world. It was only an instrument to plunder the resources of the world for the good of the British treasury and the pockets of individual colonial officials and merchants thru whatever means necessary - incl war. E.g. the Opium War of the 1840s, fought with Qing China to open up the Chinese mkt so that British merchants can sell drugs (opium) directly to the Chinese public. :rolleyes: Just cos there's nothing the Chinese wanted to buy from the British (not even British manufactured goods) except for opium. And they gotten Hong Kong to serve as their base in the Far East.
And it was the British who came up with the "White Man's Burden" colonial concept too. The British concept of empire was them sitting at the top as the leaders whilst the rest of us colonial peoples served as whatever **** they put us as.
Whereas I do agree that the British did good with some colonies like India, Australia etc but the picture isn't so rosy for some others. But compared with the French, Dutch etc, the British were OK as imperialists go. But the Americans today (who stepped into the British global role during WW2) are much better. :goodjob:

I am extremley annoyed at any refrence to the Americans saving the day in WW2 - though it is strictly true you must rememeber that most of the US population was quite happy to let all of Europe, Africa, Asia be taken over by fascists. WW2 was fought brilliantly by the British Empire (somehow I left that bit out): the fighting of the war saved the world from the Axis powers when the US was prepared to do nothing

I think you are probably wrong about malaysia getting better - except in terms of technological advancment (which obviously is gonna happen)
THough in the 1800's things were bad for colonies in the 1900's they improved significantly and people really begin to concentrate on making the colonies good places: just a pity WW2 destroyed the empire

I didn't say the Americans saved the day in WW2, only that the Americans became the leading international force in the 'free world' during the course of WW2. If anything, we were saved cos Germany attacked the Soviet Union. Not to denigrate the British role during WW2, I still think w/o the Americans, the British could never make much of an impact in the Western European threatre esp if the Germans didn't invade the East.

"I think you are probably wrong about malaysia getting better - except in terms of technological advancment (which obviously is gonna happen)
THough in the 1800's things were bad for colonies in the 1900's they improved significantly and people really begin to concentrate on making the colonies good places: just a pity WW2 destroyed the empire"

I live here. I know better. :rolleyes: Yes, things were much better in the olden colonial days when we served as servants and drivers to the British officials and company directors than now, when we served as our own officials and company directors.

I am extremley annoyed at any refrence to the Americans saving the day in WW2 -
You may feel annoyed all you would like, but we're always happy to pull our British friends' fat out of a fascist Fire :lol:...

The British did resist the Nazis, but were utterly incapable of sustaining themselves without America even before December 8th, 1941 (When America declared war on Japan).

As you doubtless recall, the key to Britain's survival was the war in the Atlantic. Not France. Not North Africa. Not the Med. But the Atlantic. And the big fight in the Atlantic was not over fishing rights with the Nazis.... it was about the supplies... war material, food, clothing, raw materials, etc. that was essential to Britain's survival. The vast majority of these supplies came from America, much of it under various Roosevelt machinations like lend Lease. We even gave England 50 WWI destroyers, which is a pretty blatant crossing of the neutrality line. American destroyers in the North Atlantic actaully fought some German subs before Dec 1941, too. Britian never stood alone, despite the lack of a formal declaration of war by the US. If Britian had stood alone (without the US), the Bergermeister would have people in London singing "Achtung, Baby!" with special fervor today!


though it is strictly true you must rememeber that most of the US population was quite happy to let all of Europe, Africa, Asia be taken over by fascists. WW2 was fought brilliantly by the British Empire (somehow I left that bit out): the fighting of the war saved the world from the Axis powers when the US was prepared to do nothing
it sound like you're becoming a historical revisionist.... The US not only acted and saved the day, it save the Century, :lol:. The Britsh did learn how to bow in defeat to the German Supermen, and America taught the British how to destroy an evil empire. Prior to December of 1941, I will not embarrass you with the "victories" in Poland, Belgium, France (Dunquerque ring a bell?), Africa, the Far East (talk about a rout), the North Atlantic (the pursuit and destruction of the Bismark was a good victory, though!), etc. The one real shining example of British resolve was two things: The Battle of Britian (airwar) and Churchill's decision to reinforce the Med. at a point when British naval resources were stretched very thin, especially in defense of the isles. That took guts.

just a pity WW2 destroyed the empire
Colonialism was dead long before WWII... but it just had not ended yet. ;)
http://www.civfanatics.com/uploads/america1s.jpg

The vital ingredient in the British People are their Norse masters.... In fact, the Normans were Vikings who obtained "Normandy" from Paris in return for the pledge not to sack the city. It seems the French could not defend their own country even 1,500 years ago, LOL....

So years later, in 1066... guess who invaded and transformed England....

Anyway, the Vikings (AKA the British) did have a magnificent Empire...

If they transformed only England then still should have been the Scottish Empire, with King Sixchan Ruling the largest empire ever!
Actually, had the English not invaded Ireland and taken it over, Ireland wouldn't be a republic and I would not be in Japan, but in a large mansion with servants due to my Celtic nobility.

BTW, I'm NOT joking!:king:

Well, we had to kick out the Stewarts, they were the most useless Royal family we ever had. (and that's saying something) :D
More seriously, for all the good the Empire did there are too many countries with an axe to grind about British dominance, nobody is likely to speak favourably about it for a LONG time to come.
eg: Incidents in the Boer war are still critisized but no-one remembers (or cares to) that the settlement with the Boers after the war, was at the time thought incredibly generous and far sighted.

Originally posted by SKM
Coming from an ex-British colonial territory ...
Hear hear! BOO to the oppressors who thought they did so much good to the poor inferiors under their charge! Sometimes I think that bunk is brought about as a way to justify what really is a dark blot on a nation's history. Yes, some good came of it - but it might have anyway. People pick up ideas for improving society and landscape by observation, too - colonization is not a necessary means to this end. The Brits didn't save India from itself. Others had unified the subcontinent before, maybe it would happen again. I hate that argument that "they (be it indians or africans or anybody) were just quarreling until we came in and established order." What a pantsload of hooey.

That's not to say it was all bad, but I think you give the brits too much credit for what might have developed of its own accord, in its own time.

"Australia and Canada: while what happened to natives in these countries is not fantastic..."
Huh? Not fantastic? Try downright appalling and horrific - genocide, inadvertent (and planned) introduction of diseases, planned destruction of cultures (in the name of "civilizing" them of course), and other activities that were carried out with the arrogance that the colonizer's way was superior. Imagine a horde of aboriginies conquering england (okay, bear with me here ;) ) and forcing you to abandon your ways - make you take to the desert to hunt and live in a lean-to, beat you for speaking english, and kill 4 out of every 5 englishmen in the process. All because you needed to be rescued from your erroneous ways. You'd see what an understatement that is, I suspect.

"they (be it indians or africans or anybody) were just quarreling until we came in and established order."
I expect that bit is actually true - you don't really believe that a tiny island like Britain could come to rule over a quarter of the world without taking advantage of the internal troubles of other countries do you?

Perhaps I wasn't clear - what I meant by that line you quote is that they take credit for solving problems of strife. You are entirely correct that they were shrewd enough to take advantage of the situation...

Don't be too hard on us, that kind of justification is still being used today. ;)

Originally posted by Crazy Eddie
Don't be too hard on us, that kind of justification is still being used today. ;) I did mention that of all the imperialistic powers, the British were the best. However, imperialists are imperialists and any imperialists by themselves are bad. Witness how the French were kicked out of Indo-China by the Vietnamese and the Dutch fr Indonesia after WW2. Showed the level of feelings colonial peoples had for their European masters.

The British today may wax lyrical about the glories of empire but fr the perspective of the colonial peoples, while things might not be really that bad during the colonial days, they are definitely much better today. At least where I stay anyway. ;)

Good post, Starlifter.

SKM - I also agree that the Soviets bore the brunt of the German onslaught in WWII.

But no one else was prepared to stand up against Hitler except for Winston Churchill. Certainly not the French. The Chzechs were ready to fight in 1938, and got sold out by Chamberlain. Stalin was his buddy. America was neutral.

Churchill, in my opinion was one of the greatest leaders of any country, anywhere. He inspired a nation to fight against hopeless odds, in hopeless times.

About the British Empire, however, I throw my vote in with Sodak.

Graeme, all your rantings about the 'evils' of America were portrayed first by British Imperialists. Sorry, but its the truth.

I don't blame you for it, though.:)

The British Empire helped the world by senting the Industrial revolution to places like Africa and India (and area) in Asia!

It created modern trade!

>>I am extremley annoyed at any refrence to the Americans saving the day in WW2 - though it is strictly true you must rememeber that most of the US population was quite happy to let all of Europe, Africa, Asia be taken over by fascists. WW2 was fought brilliantly by the British Empire (somehow I left that bit out): the fighting of the war saved the world from the Axis powers when the US was prepared to do nothing <<

Ah, the Americans being blamed for being isolationist. Strange how the world turns. England and France were quite happy to let their neighbors be taken over by fascism until it was almost too late. If they had put their foot down in '36 when Germany marched into the Rhineland, they could have stopped the entire mess. Instead they let things get so out of control that France was conquered, England bombed mercilessly, and in the end the Soviets dominant over half of Europe. When handing out blame for not stopping WWII keep in mind two of the parties not considered significant enough to attend the Munich confrence in 1938, The US, and CZECHOLSOVAKIA!

The Czechs could have single-handedly stopped the entire German army; they got the men and equipment to do it and the Germans didn't (at that point in time). Unfortunately, the Brits and French didn't give them the political support ......

"The British Empire helped the world by senting the Industrial revolution to places like Africa and India (and area) in Asia!

It created modern trade!"

The Europeans (of which the British were among the later ones) also destroyed India's local industry and the Asian international sea trade.

The British also used the term 'trade' to get their own way in a lot of Asian countries. E.g. British traders got their govt to war on China (the Opium War) cos they wanted to sell opium directly to the Chinese people in the name of 'free trade' (cos the Chinese didn't want anything else made by the Brits). All the Qing govt was doing was simply to restict foreign import of opium (which is after all drugs).

The British done a lot for the people of her empire, like building roads, rail, hospitals etc.

But they did enjoy killing the local inhabitants.

In the whole, these countries wouldn't have existed without the European establishing colonies in Africa, Asia and America. So to conclude it was good thing.

Redtom

Originally posted by redtom
...In the whole, these countries wouldn't have existed without the European establishing colonies in Africa, Asia and America. So to conclude it was good thing.
Odd how easy it is to overlook that current African nation borders bear almost no resemblance to ethnic regions, demographics, and millenia-old trade systems. There is often talk of how corrupt African nations are, how the black market ruins trade. It is simply the ignorance that the new borders and systems were arbitrary, and had nothing at all to do with how the locals had been trading and moving goods for eons. And continue to do...

Nation-states really came into being less than 200 years ago - it would have spread outside europe with our without the help of colonization. Taking credit for something inevitable is a bit suspect.

Some good was done, but not nearly as much as the colonizers like to congratulate themselves for.

I think the thing about British colonial efforts is that it was in general more peaceful and less cruel than some of the other European nations. This is the perception that I have anyway. This by no means made it good or right. Colonialism was bad enough when it was practiced over subjects with the same background, let alone imposed upon a people.

I think that some of this British attitude that colonialism was good can be atributed to their nation's more peaceful transition away from colonialism as compared to nations like France.

What may be able to be said is that areas that were colonized by the British benefited (or were hurt less) than areas colonized by other European powers. This is not an absolute statement, and in no way is meant to justify colonialism in terms of what is morally right or wrong.

The Empire was, of course, gained through campaigns whose prerequisite was that under no circumstance whatsoever should the enemy be armed. :D

And why not? Since Vietnam this has been the Pentagon's ideal scenario for waging wars... :p

I would like to ask those defensive Americans, Why DID you not join the League of Nations?

Good bless Hannover, or the accursed Stuarts would still be on the throne (Anne after William of Orange, of course)

The British Empire is the only 'surviving' large Empire, as the Commonwealth promotes a helping, guiding community. Sure we cannot take all the credit for modernalization, as the Belgiums invented it around the same time, but could these countries be as well built up.

I don't believe India is very often Unified, and would you rather have Pakastanis and Indians trying to kill each other (more) or two recognisable states?

Besides, who helped out in Isrial-Palastine? The British Government was put under a lot of pressure by many countries, yet you see the trouble.
After several rich industialists told us off for not doing enough, we offered the job to them (They were mostly Americans so we offered it to America). We were turned down.....

Even very early on, England was a democracy (Magna Carta), a bias fledgling one yes but a democracy.
We certainly perferred peace to violence when releasing colonies. (thank you 12 states of America, a necessary lesson)

I think looking over Britain, this is important!
America only had one real battle in the First World War so here is some important information:
1. Belgium was the first official demilitarised country.WE protected it.
2. Germany was being agressive to France, while the French were being friendly to us. You do the math.
3. Did your boys realise they carried Spanish flu over? (No accusation, just a question)

I know of an important event, known as the Suez Canal, in which the Two great world powers decided to let Britain and France face hostilities rather than kick out Nasa, a man Antony Eden believed was Hitler Incarnate ( one of our blunders, look at Egypt now!) This official marks the end of all imperialism as they were no longer profitable. If someone could make a list of artrocities, please do so, I can only think of one and that was in Ireland.......

It shouldn't be too suprising that the British disliked Nasser - he was arrested during WWII for spying for the Nazis.

"I would like to ask those defensive Americans, Why DID you not join the League of Nations?"

I believe the League was actually an idea by President Wodrow Wilson (?). The reason the Americans didn't join in the end (to the disappointment of the Pres) was cos the home country was isolationist and didn't care much for the outside world or the Europeans.

"The British Empire is the only 'surviving' large Empire, as the Commonwealth promotes a helping, guiding community. Sure we cannot take all the credit for modernalization, as the Belgiums invented it around the same time, but could these countries be as well built up."

A few islands and minor territories here and there doesn't qualify Britain as as empire. For real empires today, look at the Russian Federation and China. Or even America, remotely. And coming fr an ex-British colony and a member country of the Commonwealth, I don't really think much of the achievements of the British Commonwealth or during our time as a British colony.

"I don't believe India is very often Unified, and would you rather have Pakastanis and Indians trying to kill each other (more) or two recognisable states?"

So they are two recognisable states today. They are still trying to kill each other.

"Even very early on, England was a democracy (Magna Carta), a bias fledgling one yes but a democracy.
We certainly perferred peace to violence when releasing colonies. (thank you 12 states of America, a necessary lesson)"

Isn't it 13 states?

"I know of an important event, known as the Suez Canal, in which the Two great world powers decided to let Britain and France face hostilities rather than kick out Nasa, a man Antony Eden believed was Hitler Incarnate ( one of our blunders, look at Egypt now!) This official marks the end of all imperialism as they were no longer profitable. If someone could make a list of artrocities, please do so, I can only think of one and that was in Ireland....... "

Atrocities by the British imperials? How about mass shooting of a protesting public in Amaritsar, India (machine-gunned IIRC)? Concentration camps during the Boer War? Slaving in Africa to provide slaves for the New World plantations? The Opium War in China to force the Chinese to open up their mkt to Indian opium? I am sure there're some more but I am not really good with British history so ....

But don't worry bout it; it's all history now. So long as we learned fr it. All empires got some black spots, or else they wouldn't be empires in the first place.

Originally posted by Blackadder
The British Empire is the only 'surviving' large Empire

The empire doesn't exist anymore! It's gone!

Also, I have no time to list the atrocities commited in pursuit of empire, and in the consolidation of it. God knows how many were commited in India.

Even very early on, England was a democracy (Magna Carta), a bias fledgling one yes but a democracy.

Surely you jest? While the magna carta was a tremendous milestone in limiting the absolute authority of the King, I don't believe that anything within 400 years of it could be even remotely called democracy. Just because the noble lords got a bit more power because Kig John was an idiot does not make a democracy. It does establish a concept that the government needs to be responsible, but this is nowhere near democracy.

1. Belgium was the first official demilitarised country.WE protected it.

I'm a little unclear on this. When were they demilitarized, and how do you define protection?

America only had one real battle in the First World War so here is some important information:

Exactly what is your point?

Errrr. Sorry, a litttle confusing and I was rather tired yesterday.


Empire= Bad choice of words, although we do have minor areas, like France and Holland.

As for Democracy, can you think of anything approaching it during the next few centuries. I was once told that only England and Poland-Lithuania were the nearest to Democracies(funny how they both still had kings though) The key words are 'I was told'.
Perhaps Democracy is too strong a word, but by its definition, has a true Democracy ever been reached?

I remember reading that Belgium was the first Demilitarised country, although Britain had guaranteed its protection over 80 years ago. Could be wrong though.

Ah, but would you agree if India and Pakistan had still been together, there would not have been a civil war?

Kindly keep the atrocities coming, The opium wars, the Irish Portestant Catholic fights,The Indian trouble etc. Then think carefully about each one in gory detail and consider that Britain was often considered to be one of the Nicer Nations.............

Although, slavery has been happening for a long time and was often helped by Chieftains SELLING enermies or even members of their own respective tribes. Neither were we the first or last, sadly.

Thanks for clearing up the Nasser business, I always wondered why Antony Eden did what he did, even when the British people uproared.

WHY I ADDED WWI

I was purely assesing that we have had more than one lesson from History to learn, so no-one should forget WWI, WWII, The Seven years war, Napoleonics, War of Spanish Succession. Notice that as an island nation, England/Britain always strived for balance of political power. Although the reasons were selfish, they did prevent huge empires in Europe. (and indirectly saved Prussia with financial help during the Seven Years War, although all credit to them and the Czar. Prussia, of course created a unified Germany)

Perhaps Democracy is too strong a word, but by its defenition, has a true Democracy ever been reached?

You are correct of course. I believe Athens may have had a true democracy, but other than that, the term today is used to reffer to representative democracy. The whole king thing is not whether a nation has one or not, but what political power they have. The whole democracy thing is quite funny when you look at the US and britain really. Britain was heading for democracy at the time of the revolution. The Americans adopted a truer version first because they wanted a quicker break from monarchial power. The two peoples were (and still aren't) not that different. What is truely amazing is that England didn't just give the colonies representation in Parliament. With representation it is possible that the colonies may not have broken off....

I was purely assesing that we have had more than one lesson from History to learn

Every nation has more than one lesson to learn from history. What I didn't understand is why you pointed out that the US had only fought in one battle in WWI (Not disputing, just wondering why you chose to point it out).

Simply because I thought it was interesting. I think I had been overlooking the other posts and saw to my shock only mentions of WW2 so I went for a shock tactic. Did it work?

Not on me. I knew that the Americans entered WWI very late in the game, and only helped tip the balance a little. In fact that was part of the problem. The British and the French didn't want to hear from the Americans on being lenient on Germany. They didn't want all of Wilson's 14 points and even though the Germans had surrendered expecting to get them, they slapped a harsh peace on them. Unfortunately we saw the results 21 years later.

As far as Belgium and their security being guaranteed, I question how well it was guaranteed. However it would be better to ask someone from Belgium.

Originally posted by Blackadder
Although, slavery has been happening for a long time and was often helped by Chieftains SELLING enermies or even members of their own respective tribes. Neither were we the first or last, sadly.
Of course, but think of what happened. You are a tribal leader. A ship arrives with technologically superior fellows who tell you that the now empty ship will leave full of slaves. Do you hand over your own people? Of course not, you grab some neighbors to save your own.

Slavery existed on a small scale without the help of europeans. This can be seen as deplorable in hindsight, but it would never have happened on such a grand scale had the europeans not shown up to make such a huge traffic in humans.

Originally posted by Sodak

Slavery existed on a small scale without the help of europeans. This can be seen as deplorable in hindsight, but it would never have happened on such a grand scale had the europeans not shown up to make such a huge traffic in humans.


The trouble with progress is that many civilisations do not appear to be able to deal with new technologies properly. I have no doubt in my mind that eventually slavery would have gone like that without Europeans. If any nation had had the same technology, the same thing would have happened.

Slavery exists beyond Emancipation acts and Democracies. Today, there is still slavery. Is this the legacy of Europe's endevors as power mad slavers?
The point is I believe that you cannot count this as so large an atrocity as Britains other endevors.

Originally posted by Blackadder
Empire= Bad choice of words, although we do have minor areas, like France and Holland.

Everybody does. The US does to some extent, with places like Puerto Rico. Doesn't make any of them an empire, though.

On my recent travels I came across a few interesting and little known (to me!) facts about Britain around the world.

Firstly that the British Navy protected the Portuguese during their war with Spain, safely escorting the Portuguese Royal family to Brazil, where Rio was briefly was capital of the Portuguese empire.

Secondly British troops were within striking distance of the Chinese capital when they retreated, taking Hong Kong as their own. This struck me as peculiar, perhaps the Empire couldn't sustain the occupation of China, didn't want to, or someone here knows?

Thirdly that more recently the British Navy stationed a fleet off the coast of Estonia to bolster it's peaceful independence of the former USSR.

Just thought you might like to know...

Has anyone else heard that Britain was prepared to invade argentina but decided not and took Falkland Islands/Las Malvinas?

This confuses me as Britain decided quite early on in the 19th century to stay clear of south american colonies, and along with america encouraged other nations to do the same. So why didn't we?

When were the Falkland Islands colonised?

I always thought those islands were British crown colonies, that Argentina always laid claim to. If the date was before Argentina was a country, then Britain had every right to own it. If not...........

Has anyone else heard that Britain was prepared to invade argentina but decided not and took Falkland Islands/Las Malvinas?

This confuses me as Britain decided quite early on in the 19th century to stay clear of south american colonies, and along with america encouraged other nations to do the same. So why didn't we?


This happened.


In 1806, with Napoleon planning his invasion of Iberia and with Spain and Portugal more concerned with events at home than in their American colonies, some of the British military became restless. Africa was relatively quiet for the time being. As was Europe.
With absolutely no authorization from the Admiralty back in London, Popham set sail across the South Atlantic. His flagship appeared in the mouth of the La Plata River in June. On the 17th Beresford and his force of several regiments were landed, marched on Buenos Aires, and captured the fortress. The British half-expected to be met with open arms by rebellious colonials. It was not to be. The colonists could see through this army of liberation ploy and had no intention of just switching masters. They deposed the ineffectual Spanish viceroy, who had fled anyway, substituting Santiago Liniers as acting viceroy, placing him at the head of the local forces. After several months of British occupation Liniers lead the counterattack, with his separate regiments of blacks, Spaniards and European emigres (criollos). The British situation rapidly disintegrated and the troops were trapped inside the city walls. Some of them took refuge in the Church of Santo Domingo and were captured there. (The regimental colors were later put on display in the church.) Beresford himself capitulated on the 12th of August and was thrown into prison. It wasn't until December that he was able to escape and make his way back to England. Popham was recalled and sailed for home.

Undaunted, the British tried again, this time sanctioned by the pride-wounded English government. In February of 1807 another British force of 8,000, lead by John Whitelocke, landed in Montevideo, Uruguay, with the intention of regaining possession of Buenos Aires. Whitelocke's attack in July was turned back by a colonial force, once again led by Santiago Liniers. The defeated British force left Argentina. The colonists had won two victories, and without the help of the mother country. A Royal Viceroy had been tossed out of office by colonials for the first time. Ties weakened further, and it would only be three more years before they were broken altogether, when Argentina gained its independence in the May Revolution of 1810. As so often happens, even today, revolution was immediately followed by civil war and dictatorship. Peace would not return for many years. Spain's dominion over Argentina however would never return.


The occupation of the falklands was/is an act of piracy.1690 Captain

1690 John Strong, whilst sailing for Chile, becomes first Englander to chart the Islands; Falkland Sound (and hence Islands) named after then First Lord of the Admiralty.
1713 Intense trade rivalry between Spain, Britain and France leads to Treaty of Utrecht; confirms Spain's control of South American territories, including the Islands.
1764 Antoine de Bougainville claims Islands in the name of Louis XV for France. Small settlement called Port Louis built on East Falkland.
1765 British Admiralty sends Commodore John Byron; arrives on West Falkland, unaware of the presence of the French, names a spot Port Egmont, raises the Union Flag, plants a small vegetable patch and leaves.
1766 Captain John McBride sent to consolidate Byron's landing and eject all other settlers. French colony now numbers 250.
1767 Spanish angered by British and French actions; French colony ceded to Spanish; governor Don Felipe Ruiz Puente installed.
1769 Buenos Aires captain general Francisco Bucarelli instructed by Madrid to drive any British from the Islands; 5 ships and 1400 men sent. Later British allowed to return to Port Egmont, but right of sovereignty retained by Spain.
1790 Spain and Britain sign Nootka Sound Convention in which Britain formally renounces "all colonial ambition" in S.America and adjacent islands. Spain continues to occupy Islands for next 40 years until collapse of New World empire.
1810 First moves of Argentinian independence from Spain; first Argentinian governor appointed in 1823.
c.1829 Argentinians arrest American ship 'Harriet' for illegal sealing. Ship sails to Buenos Aires. Encouraged by British, American consul refuses to accept Argentinian authority over Islands and dispatches warship USS Lexington to restore confiscated skins. Captain of Lexington, Silas Duncan, sacks Puerto Soledad, destroys Argentine guns and arrests inhabitants; declares Islands 'free of all governments' and leaves.
2/1/1833 UK claims Islands: warships Tyne and Clio under command of Capt. James Onslow. British take six months to round up rebels and convicts left on Islands by Argentina, who refused to accept British rule; one Antonio Rivero since cast as Argentine heroic guerilla.

We were a country, not a colony when britain invaded the islands.

Well ,i guess i have something to contribute to a WWI history.

I actually live in Ypres ,a small city in the West of Belgium.As you would run through my city ,you would think by it's medieval look that it is a very old city.But in fact ,it's an exact copie of the city that stood here before 1914.
For for years my city was one of the center spot's of WWI.In the surrounding landscape of ypres lies hundred's of war graveyard's.Filled with Canadian's, English and German causulties of WWI.Farming arround ypres has a certain danger level ,as each year some farmer get's blown away by a WWI restover unexploded artillery shell.
On ten meter's of my house ,One of the biggest monumet's of WWI stand's in it's full glory.And every day ,at 20.00hrs gmt+1 ,and ode by trompet's is held at that very monument ,it's called the last post.
My city has the best WWI museum in the world.Each year ,people flok to my city to see all these thing ,especially british people ,and we earn well with the tourism.And each so many years ,some king's (mostly english or other high official's come to remember the war ,right next to my doorstep.And then i just look out of my window.
People working for the commonwelth come to my country to maintain the graveyard's.They have a little Anglican church and a english pub not far of the big market square. (beer at 0.5$ :crazyeyes )

And why all this? On a nice Belgium day ,some simple bloke from my city that maintained a canal port (you know ,to water lift ships) ,came up with a weird plan to stop the invading German army on that very day by himself ,just by fully opening the cannal port's ,that way flooding the Flanders lowlands.
And so the german's were stopped ,entrenched for four years in a horrible natural condition's ,followed by hard winter's.
You know ,that simple bloke may be one of the best soldiers of his generation.

And close to my city ,at passendale ,a bohemean corporal fought for the glory of reich.Frustrated by the event's that happened there ,he would later lead a reich of his own through the landscape ,and visit those old war place's he fought.

So i ask you ,were the brittish a force for good in my city?
In any way ,it shaped my city.As even it's medieval beauty was a product of english sheep.

No one is certain who first sighted the Falklands, Vespucci, Magellan, Davis, Hawkins and Sebald de Weert all lay claim to this.

The first person to actually set foot on the islands, as distinct from noting them in logs and journals, was Captain James Strong who was driven off course by a storm enroute to Chile in 1690.

Strong charted the islands and named them the Falklands but did not claim them for Britain.

The treaty of Utrecht (1713) formally confirmed Spanish control of it's traditional territories in the Americas, which according to the Spanish, included the Falklands.

This did not stop other nations from wishing to control them for strategic reasons ie. Britain and France.

A Frenchman by the name of Antoine de Bougainville laid claim to them for Louis XV of France in 1764. He landed with a small group of settlers on the site just north of present day Port Stanley and built a small fort and settlement named Port Louis.

The British, unaware of de Bougainville's settlement, made a landing on West Falkland a year later in 1765 at a spot they named Port Egmont, laid claim to the island after hoisting the flag and sailed away.

The following year the British Admiralty sent out another expedition to establish a colony at Port Egmont.

The French agreed to tranfer their claim of the Falklands to the Spanish in 1767 at which time the colony was renamed Puerto Soledad and was governed from Spanish Buenos Aires.

In 1769 the Spanish Captain-General of Buenos Aires sent a military force to evict the British colony at Port Egmont.

After a year of negiation between the British and Spanish the British were allowed to return to Port Egmont as part of a diplomatic solution to "restore the King's honour" which was agreed to by the Spanish on the condition that the Brits then sailed away. The Spanish still claimed sovereignty of the islands as did the British.

The British formally renounced any colonial claims in South America when it signed the Nootka Sound Convention in 1790.

With the first moves towards independence in the Spanish colonies in South America the settlers in Puerto Soledad were removed to Patagonia by the Spanish authorities.

In 1820 the newly independent state of the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata (Argentina) sent a frigate to the islands to claim it as part of the Spanish colonial legacy.

In 1829(?) an American (US) sealing ship Harriet, was seized whilst in Falkland waters by the Argentinians for illegal sealing.

In response, the Americans sent the warship USS Lexington to Puerto Soledad and all but destroyed the settlement and took back the confiscated sealskins, and sailed away declaring 'the islands free of all government'.

Another Argentine Governor was sent to the islands and was promptly murdered by the surviving inhabitants.

The British, in 1833, took advantge of the situation and sent two warships to enforce the British claim to the islands (despite Nootka Sound) and evicted the Argentinians.

The British government formally declared the Falklands a colony in 1842 and in 1908 unilaterally declared sovereignty over the South Georgia , South Sandwich, Orkney and Shetland Islands and Graham Land and were grouped under the Falkland Islands Dependencies.

Did I say a brief history - that will do for now. :D

Just noticed Kublai Khan's post, I suspect we're using the same source for our posts(?).

I was using 'Battle for the Falklands' by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins - an excellent commentary on the Falklands!

Originally posted by andycapp
Just noticed Kublai Khan's post, I suspect we're using the same source for our posts(?).

I was using 'Battle for the Falklands' by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins - an excellent commentary on the Falklands!

I think that this problem is far to complicated,
i ve seen spanish maps that showed the falklands -or something that seems to be the falklands-
from before 1690.
I don´t think it will be solve anyway.
And if it is solved, it wont be in argentinean favor.
For obvious reasons.
You just have to look to what´s happening in Spain with gibraltar.

The resident populations in both Gibralter and the Falklands want to remain British which will be the major hurdle to these territories returning to Spain and Argentina.

I don't question that the British were a force for good in Belgium in the 20th century. My only question was how well they have guaranteed the security of Belgium. I am not saying this is the case, but I could see where Belgiuns could be a bit indignant at claims that Britain guaranteed their security given that the Germans were allowed to rearm and overrun the country in 1940. Don't get me wrong, I know that the British played a major part in liberating Belgium from the Germans, and I'm sure that the Belgians are grateful, I just wan't sure what the Belgian perspective was on guarantees of security given over four years of occupation.

Originally posted by andycapp
The resident populations in both Gibralter and the Falklands want to remain British which will be the major hurdle to these territories returning to Spain and Argentina.

The falklands islands have a population of less than 3.000
inhabitants,
in a supermarket there is more people.
I don´t think that they have the right to determinate who is the owner of their territory.
Of course if you replace the native population with british population that is going to happen.
Anyway, the history is in our side, not the economical or militar power.
But i really don´t care about the falkland islands,
they are just 2 small islands with no resources at all.

Falklands
-The Falklands does have some worth to britain as it apparently has untold of oil reserves below the isles. It also produces wool for the British market.
-The majority of people in the Falklands are British and have absolutely no wish to join stinking poor country like argentina.
-We've fought for the islands in the past and it would be bad to give it back without a fight. Just think of all those dozens of British soldiers who fought and died for the islands. Then compare it to all those hundreds of murderous Argentines fighting for a fascist government.
-We first sighted it.

Gibraltar
-It was handed to us during the Treaty of Utrecht along with Minorca.
-The majority of people living on the point are British and want to remain part of the British Empire.
-It has huge strategic value to a naval nation like Great Britain, far as I know it played a huge part in the Second World War preventing the Nazis from overtaking the Mediteranean.

PS. We still have the largest official empire, the Russian Federation is an territory, now.

PSS What did the Danish ever do for the world?

Originally posted by redtom
Falklands
-The Falklands does have some worth to britain as it apparently has untold of oil reserves below the isles. It also produces wool for the British market.
-The majority of people in the Falklands are British and have absolutely no wish to join stinking poor country like argentina.
-We've fought for the islands in the past and it would be bad to give it back without a fight. Just think of all those dozens of British soldiers who fought and died for the islands. Then compare it to all those hundreds of murderous Argentines fighting for a fascist government.
-We first sighted it.

Gibraltar
-It was handed to us during the Treaty of Utrecht along with Minorca.
-The majority of people living on the point are British and want to remain part of the British Empire.
-It has huge strategic value to a naval nation like Great Britain, far as I know it played a huge part in the Second World War preventing the Nazis from overtaking the Mediteranean.

PS. We still have the largest official empire, the Russian Federation is an territory, now.

PSS What did the Danish ever do for the world?


a)
It has no oil, look as much as you want, but it has no oil.
Dozens of times, studies have been made in the islands but nothing could be discovered.
And wool is something just to cheap that you can get anywhere, the reason of the interest of britain in the falklands is more related with the antartic continenet.
b)
Yes, but the population was argentinean first, they replaced the population with british man later.
The occupation of the falklands is an act of piracy, I understand that after 170 years in a way we don´t have a right to claim soberany over the islands.
But we always claimed that the island were ours.
You should know that in a lot of times in our history the british government was very close to give us the islands by diplomacy and until the war england was our biggest market and "friend " in a way.
c)
Argentina has been always a democracy, we had a dictatorship at those times becouse USA-i am not making an american bashing(it is not my intention)- and their big friends like england were very afraid of communism in those times, remember cuba, allende in chile and the problems in el salvador and guatemala.
So they decided that it was good for democracy and freedom in the world to instaurate disctatorships in latin america, so we had a bunch of crazy ****s ruling us, trained in "escuela de las americas" and obssesed with the idea of a third world war against the comunist countries, who by the way killed 30.000 people , mostly university students.
The war was declared becouse it was clear that the dictatorship could no longer stay in power, the people wanted back democracy, so
the military coup decided to re-conquer the falkland islands to try to win the population support, they lost the war-they really didn´t believe that england was going to do something, we were so good friends..-
and after they lost the war we were a democracy again.

d)Until the middle 70´s -before the military coup-Argentina was considered a first world country, we were very simmilar to Australia and New Zeland for example.
Countries whose population was majorly conformed by european inmigrants. with an incipient industry and our principal activity was to export agricultural goods to england.

e)We've fought for the islands in the past and it would be bad to give it back without a fight. Just think of all those dozens of British soldiers who fought and died for the islands. Then compare it to all those hundreds of murderous Argentines fighting for a fascist government.

Should i answer this? You are really amazing, you are like a british redneck.
Only one men of the islands die, and the other casualties are what is expected in a war.
Do you know something about the ship Manuel Belgrano, i can find something for you, half of the argentinean victims died there, and it was not in the area of fight.

Britain had the largest official empire until Hong Kong returned to the Chinese. We are now about 6th in the imperial league table, behind (I think) France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Spain and Portugal.

The British Empire now consists of a few scattered island groups like the Pitcairns, and Gibralter.

An interesting fact is that about 50% of the worlds money laundering / tax evasion takes place through various British dependencies (Jersey, Sark, Isle of Man, various Carribean islands, etc)


As for the Falklands, Argentina removed a dictator and began an economic recovery, We were landed with Margret Thatcher for another 8 years and have a $2 billion airport on Ascension Island.

Originally posted by redtom
[... Just think of all those dozens of British soldiers who fought and died for the islands. ...those hundreds of murderous Argentines fighting for a fascist government.
-We first sighted it.

Uh, do I sense some strong bias here? :rolleyes: "Murderous Argentines"? Only because they killed some Brits? Does this not make the Brits who killed Argentines "Murderous Brits"? It goes both ways, pal.

A "stinking poor country like argentina"!? At least the Argentine people have some manners and respect. Grow up.

Who cares who saw it first, what difference does that make? That sounds like a petty schoolyard squabble. Mine! No, mine! I saw it first! No, I did! :rolleyes:

I think that apart from bacon, the Danish have been responsible for being for a time Scandinavia's greatest country. You see it lies in the correct geographical position to collect tolls for shipping (eg, control of Skagerak). Its history is rich in Viking heritage and then in the duel kingdoms of Denmark-Norway. Sweden was held under Danish sway for a short time but then the Sweds rebelled.
It colonised the fertile lands of Greenland, held Iceland and had a Caribbean island (I think). The rest of its history is left for a Dane to tell, I'm interested in its history also.


It looks to me like our discussion over the First World War is coming to an end so lets go to the War of Spanish Sucession.
Was Britain, Austria and the Netherlands (plus a few other countries) correct in causing massive bloodshed in Europe (as can be seen in the poem, The Battle of Blenheim) so we wouldn't face the danger of Franco-Spain, and that although many of you believe this was done for a selfish reason, it shows Britain as a force/empire for balance and therefore goodness throughout Europe?

-The Falklands does have some worth to britain as it apparently has untold of oil reserves below the isles. It also produces wool for the British market.Wool, I see. Are you still living in the, say, 17th century? Wool is not really a very important economic commodity nowadays. :rolleyes:

-The majority of people in the Falklands are British and have absolutely no wish to join stinking poor country like argentina.It's cos of this kind of highbrowed snobbish attitude that nobody wants to remain in the British empire and most people want independence. :rolleyes:

-We've fought for the islands in the past and it would be bad to give it back without a fight. Just think of all those dozens of British soldiers who fought and died for the islands. Then compare it to all those hundreds of murderous Argentines fighting for a fascist government.What fascist govt? Are you living in a time warp?

The Soviets lost millions of people conquering Eastern Europe too you know. :rolleyes:

-We first sighted it.So did the Celts (or maybe an even earlier people) who saw the British isles first. Look who's ruling the island now. :rolleyes:

-It was handed to us during the Treaty of Utrecht along with Minorca.We can always have another treaty so that you can hand it back if legalities are so important to you. :rolleyes:

-The majority of people living on the point are British and want to remain part of the British Empire.I don't know much bout Gilbraltar so I'll give you this one.

-It has huge strategic value to a naval nation like Great Britain, far as I know it played a huge part in the Second World War preventing the Nazis from overtaking the Mediteranean.Great Britain no longer exist. The great part has been dropped off from the name of the country. :rolleyes: And I think the British forces in Malta and Egypt played a greater part in preventing the Nazis fr taking over the Med.

PS. We still have the largest official empire, the Russian Federation is an territory, now......... :rolleyes:

PSS What did the Danish ever do for the world?................ :rolleyes:

Originally posted by smokeyjoe
As for the Falklands, Argentina removed a dictator and began an economic recovery


now we are in a terrible recession,
it is worst than the crack of 1929
our crisis will be in every newspaper tomorrow.
I thought i needed to say that to remain impartial,
and in my last post i would like to correct myself, the military coup killed 30.000 people, not the communists-
It was a result of my bag english.

Well, what can I say, I will not dignify tom with an answer, his snobbish attitude deserves no reply.

But we can talk about "force of good".

Good, but for who? For the British. The British were not a force of good anywhere, they were a force of their own interests. I think it's pointless to discuss if they were good or bad, they were defending their interests wherever they went, regardless of the prior inhabitants, regardless of their culture, regardless of anything. The British Empire did nothing more than bring territories under english rule because it protected its interests best that way.

As well as the Americans saying 'we saved your bottoms in WWII" which is total piffle. The Americans saved their own bottom by intervening, and they did it because of their own interests too, not out of the goodness of their heart. They did it because it would have been worse for the US if Hitler occupied all of Europe. They launched the Marshall Plan because it would have been much worse for the US if the Russians took over Europe and communism was installed in the west.

Wherever men go, their selfish wish to protect their interests regardless of their method prevails. Whether it's good or bad, well, bollocks to it, it happens, and most times it's ****.

Sayhueque, raises a valid point to consider WHO the British Empire was 'good' for?

He is also right to suggest that self interest rather than altruism is, and has been the main motivational force in international affairs throughout history.

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
Wool, I see. Are you still living in the, say, 17th century? Wool is not really a very important economic commodity nowadays. :rolleyes:

It's cos of this kind of highbrowed snobbish attitude that nobody wants to remain in the British empire and most people want independence. :rolleyes:

What fascist govt? Are you living in a time warp?

The Soviets lost millions of people conquering Eastern Europe too you know. :rolleyes:

So did the Celts (or maybe an even earlier people) who saw the British isles first. Look who's ruling the island now. :rolleyes:

We can always have another treaty so that you can hand it back if legalities are so important to you. :rolleyes:

I don't know much bout Gilbraltar so I'll give you this one.

Great Britain no longer exist. The great part has been dropped off from the name of the country. :rolleyes: And I think the British forces in Malta and Egypt played a greater part in preventing the Nazis fr taking over the Med.

........ :rolleyes:

................ :rolleyes:

I know they don't have a fascist government now, but they did when they invaded the islands in the 80's. Though with political revolt at the mo, in argentina, this may no longer be true

On my passport it reads: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", so rolleyes try be slightly correct in the future.

Britain is made up of Celtic people including myself who has Irish ancestors, idiot. Wales and not so much scotland is celtic and is a part of the United Kingdom.

The oil - Last time I read something about Falklands it mentioned they still believe there is oil under the islands.

British redneck :lol: :lol: :lol:

That's a good one.

Its actually too bad more people don't realize that nations are and should be guided by national self interest. The US would have a much better world wide regard if we hadn't been so hypocritical. We said democracy on one hand, and dictatorship where we need it to fight comunism on the other. Maybe we didn't need the dictators at all, but if we would have just had the honesty to say, "We're putting this guy in cause he's against commies and promotes stability, and that is what we are most concerned with." We wouldn't have such the black eye today.

This kind of thing is still going on these days. Take Yugoslavia. We're there because its on Western Europe's doorstep, and stability in the region is vital to US interests. That should be enough. Hopefully we can help people and stop killings along the way, but why do we need to sugarcoat it. The same is true with Kuwait and the Gulf War. Wasn't having someone like Saddam in control of that much oil reason enough?

I think it is America's hypocritical stances on its actions that causes more trouble for it than its actions themselves.

If I sound like a redneck but I do get a bit protective of my home country, after all the Americans in over threads are just as protective of there's.

The empire was not built on expansionist issues it was built on Britains commercial interest, initially slaves, then cotton etc.. The reason's are Empire was so big was due to the fact we had more money and ships to expand. No British leader ever wanted to expand his empire beyond the economic interests of the nation, Take Gladstone, for example, he left a British general, George, to die because he did not believe Sudan was economically viable. As it would cost more to keep Sudan than to leave it for another Empirical power.

If want an example of a nation who built its empire because it thought it deserved/believed to own a massive empire, than look at France.

I, however, do conceid that the scramble for africa was expansionist. Or as Lord Salisbury put it: "Its better to gain empire now and find the wealth of the land later, than find later there is nowhere to build an Empire" (This is probably very badly misquoted, but you get the idea).

I agree with Redtom on this one, the British rarely expanded for the sake of expansion. Like I and many others had mentioned earlier, Britain did everything for its own benefit. However it cannot be ignored that of all imperialists, which was the 'kindest'?
The reason countries like India was granted freedom was because it was no longer economically sustainable. The reason Britain seperated Pakistan was to help make them internationally look good, even if it did prevent a huge civil war and the eventual 'freedom' of Pakistan anyway. The reason the British never really took advantage of other countries in Europe to expand mainland and always tried to keep the balance of Europe correct is because these were no longer seen as viable or economical conquests, the loss of Calais told us that. However Britain did indeed take both Gibraltar and Malta (not to mention Minorca etc), if only to control the Medditerranian sea.
The reason Britain had pacts with Belgium was a cotton trade and the necessaty of friendly mainlanders near them.

If the British did incidental good, it still makes them a force for good. Especially when compared with other empires.
Just one more thing, I would count The United Kingdom Of Great Britain as more than one country.
Alternatively, just call it Perfidious Albion:D

And Knight-dragon, what part of Malaysia are you talking about?
Some of it was Portugese, then Dutch, then British, so you may not have not noticed much of a change....:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Blackadder
And Knight-dragon, what part of Malaysia are you talking about? Some of it was Portugese, then Dutch, then British, so you may not have not noticed much of a change....:rolleyes:The last non-British European possession in Malaysia was Malacca which the Dutch passed to the British in exchange for Bencoulen (spelling?) in Sumatra in 1824. I am talking about the whole of Malaysia which was British in its entirety. But exactly what are you referring to? Not very sure ... :confused:

On my passport it reads: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", so rolleyes try be slightly correct in the future.I didn't know that. Hmmmm, so it's still part of the official name for the UK. I had apparently thought the British dropped off the 'Great' part fr 'Great Britain', going by the news and stuff, a long time ago.

Well, you learn something new everyday .... Now I know the British still consider themselves Great and beyond others, but in such a quiet inconspicious manner that an ignorant person such as myself didn't know it. Thanks for the info. :goodjob:

Britain is made up of Celtic people including myself who has Irish ancestors, idiot. Wales and not so much scotland is celtic and is a part of the United Kingdom.So I am an idiot now, am I? :rolleyes:

So what language are you writing/speaking now? Is it per chance the evolved modern-day language of the Anglo-Saxons? Sure the descendants of the Celts still abound in Wales, Scotland and Ireland but let's be realistic. The descendants of the Germanic Anglo-Saxons rule in the British Isles.

Going by your logic of whoever first saw a land shall rule it forever more, then the British isles today would have been ruled by the descendants of the Romanized Celts and be speaking Gaelic or Welsh. Sadly, things like that don't happen in real life. Same with the Falkland Islands.

PS I don't have problems with you except for you calling the Argentinians stinking, fascist and murderous. :mad: Now that you've buried the hatchet so shall I. Peace. ;)

well, redtom is just another redneck. I expected more from the English, I considered Britain to have more... how do you call it... tact? Respectful decorum towards other?

In case your wondering, the Great bit was added by the French when the proposal of an united Britain was suggested, I'm not sure if this is completely true. Any ideas-I know it doesn't mean great as in superb, excellent etc. but in size.

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
I didn't know that. Hmmmm, so it's still part of the official name for the UK. I had apparently thought the British dropped off the 'Great' part fr 'Great Britain', going by the news and stuff, a long time ago.

Well, you learn something new everyday .... Now I know the British still consider themselves Great and beyond others, but in such a quiet inconspicious manner that an ignorant person such as myself didn't know it. Thanks for the info. :goodjob:

So I am an idiot now, am I? :rolleyes:

So what language are you writing/speaking now? Is it per chance the evolved modern-day language of the Anglo-Saxons? Sure the descendants of the Celts still abound in Wales, Scotland and Ireland but let's be realistic. The descendants of the Germanic Anglo-Saxons rule in the British Isles.

Going by your logic of whoever first saw a land shall rule it forever more, then the British isles today would have been ruled by the descendants of the Romanized Celts and be speaking Gaelic or Welsh. Sadly, things like that don't happen in real life. Same with the Falkland Islands.

PS I don't have problems with you except for you calling the Argentinians stinking, fascist and murderous. :mad: Now that you've buried the hatchet so shall I. Peace. ;)

In your country, Singapore there are considerable minority groups, like your country are powers shared among all the people therefore no single peoples/ethnic group/nationality rule over another.

In fact English majority in terms of electoral power have less. Scotland and Wales have two parliaments-Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly and the British Houses of Parliament. The english, however, only have the British Houses of Parliament to appeal to.

Also, there is no real difference in are country in terms of ethnicity. Most, if not all British people have a bit of Celtic and Germanic in them from countless Celtic, Pict, Angle, Saxon, Jute and Viking raids. (Vikings should be classed as Germanic as scandinavia was originally home to the teutonic tribes who became Goths, Vikings, Angles etc. etc. Until they spread round most places where celts once lived.
Also as 8 million Irish people live in Britain, mainly in London and many Scots and the Welsh they are spread far and wide, many people I know (I live in London) have a bit welsh, scottish and irish in them.
Wales and Scotland are giving more per head in pounds from the government. In fact scottish are one and half times more subsidised than the English, but us English understand we can't let one place be poor and the other rich, distributing the wealth of are great nation is honourable and intelligent thing to do. To hold are nation together against the savage and macabre continental Europeans.

So instead of think as the British as just the English of Anglo-Saxon language (that says nothing of ancestry or ethnicity).

Britain is happy mixture of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Celts, Picts, Normans, Jews and many other peoples from around Europe and beyond. Who share their vote equally in the mother of all parliaments.

P.S.Nobody thinks of seperating the isles in Britain except those ****ing idiot scottish nationalists who don't understand how much there a strain on British resources, that includes my uncle. :p But the scots are vital for are nation, after all it wasn't just the English who created the British Empire and made are nation what it is.

PSS Singapore must have benefitted from being a British colony, after all the British built the vital port to make it one of the greatest nations in Asia.

Oh yeah, before I forget, I said the Argentines were murderous fascists, I was right: isn't it the conquerors who decide history.

Also, before some idiot American starts quoting the massively historically inaccurate "Braveheart" movie (Some historians called counter-historical or "anti-historical").
We don't surpress are "Celtic" minority, thats all American bull****.
1)The Scots and the Welsh have more constitutional power.
2)Most people in England are celtic in origin.
3)Quite a lot Scottish people have Viking names therefore can not be called Celtic. (Irish also have some Viking "blood" in them.

Originally posted by redtom
Oh yeah, before I forget, I said the Argentines were murderous fascists, I was right: isn't it the conquerors who decide history.

Can you describe the chileans who helped England during the falklands war?
They were under the dictatorship of Pinochet, and most of the intelligence about the movement of ground troops gas given to the british by Chile,
This is why Ms Tatcher said he was an heroic man when he was in Britain waiting for the judgement.
He was as bad as the argentinean dictators,
How do you describe him?

As an heroic murderous fascist?
Or Just heroic and let´s forget those bad things.

And
i want to believe you are joking,
if in fact you are joking, i would like to recommend you to use
on of these faces------;) or:p
so
i know that you are just joking.
And if you believe what you just said,
it would be useless to keep on being in this thread.
I don´t like to insult people.

Pinoche was a murderous fascist, after all he got overthrown, so i am the conqueror;).

One of my teachers, a staunch marxist (knew my dad from the Marxist underground) lost a few friends trying to fight for communism in Chile. Pinochio, unsurprisingly, killed them, like those spaniards who were in the news years ago.

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
Coming from an ex-British colonial territory (M'sia and S'pore), I only have this to say - things have gotten about ten thousand times better since independence from the British.......... But compared with the French, Dutch etc, the British were OK as imperialists go. But the Americans today (who stepped into the British global role during WW2) are much better. :goodjob:

I must say that the British are the best thing that could have happened to Singapore. Besides the port thing, everyone is english speaking which diffuses the racial tension that exists everywhere else in South-ease Asia.

One more parallel we can see is the development of HK until 1997. Things got 10,000 times better there too - so the prosperity in Singapore is in part just due to being a part of the region.

As I recall from Lee Kuan Yew's (who did a damn fine job of keeping the country going the decades after the British left) memoirs, he was practically begging them not to leave.

p.s. Redtom, Knight Dragon from Malaysia, he only works (or studies?) in Singapore.

Originally posted by kobayashi
I must say that the British are the best thing that could have happened to Singapore. Besides the port thing, everyone is english speaking which diffuses the racial tension that exists everywhere else in South-ease Asia.

One more parallel we can see is the development of HK until 1997. Things got 10,000 times better there too - so the prosperity in Singapore is in part just due to being a part of the region.

As I recall from Lee Kuan Yew's (who did a damn fine job of keeping the country going the decades after the British left) memoirs, he was practically begging them not to leave.

p.s. Redtom, Knight Dragon from Malaysia, he only works (or studies?) in Singapore. I am getting tired of telling people I am not a Singaporean and I'll never be. I only work here upon graduating fr a local university but I guess there's no help for it, considering how huge our forums are nowadays. :crazyeyes

A hundred years fr now, when I think China will completely redominate the region again, being English-speaking may not be all that cool but for now, what Kobayashi says is extremely true to a certain extent. I will only say that when the Brits were in Spore and HK, they were only there strictly in their own interests; and certainly not to improve the lot of the locals.

Put it this way; would you prefer Spore today go back to being a British Crown Colony if the British are indeed the best thing to have happened to Spore?

PS When I posted that original quote, I think I was extremely pissed off by someone. Not sure what or why now but I think it has something to do with the notion that the British Empire is good for everybody incl its ruled or something. :confused:

Originally posted by redtom
In fact English majority in terms of electoral power have less. Scotland and Wales have two parliaments-Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly and the British Houses of Parliament. The english, however, only have the British Houses of Parliament to appeal to.Methinks, 'electoral power' is not measured by how many parliaments you can appeal to, but by how big the effect a certain group has on a voting democracy. In effect, the English majority dominates Britain thru numbers alone.

Also, there is no real difference in are country in terms of ethnicity. Most, if not all British people have a bit of Celtic and Germanic in them from countless Celtic, Pict, Angle, Saxon, Jute and Viking raids. (Vikings should be classed as Germanic as scandinavia was originally home to the teutonic tribes who became Goths, Vikings, Angles etc. etc. Until they spread round most places where celts once lived.
Also as 8 million Irish people live in Britain, mainly in London and many Scots and the Welsh they are spread far and wide, many people I know (I live in London) have a bit welsh, scottish and irish in them.True.

Wales and Scotland are giving more per head in pounds from the government. In fact scottish are one and half times more subsidised than the English, but us English understand we can't let one place be poor and the other rich, distributing the wealth of are great nation is honourable and intelligent thing to do. To hold are nation together against the savage and macabre continental Europeans.Savage and macabre continental Europeans? :lol:

So instead of think as the British as just the English of Anglo-Saxon language (that says nothing of ancestry or ethnicity).

Britain is happy mixture of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Celts, Picts, Normans, Jews and many other peoples from around Europe and beyond. Who share their vote equally in the mother of all parliaments.From my earliest point, I am not saying Britain is an unequal state or the Scots or Welsh are being oppressed. Pls reread my posts again if necessary. All I am saying is that ultimately, at the end of the day, the English dominates the Parliament (and Britain) simply by being the majority in any decision-making exercise. That's ALL.

Oh yeah, before I forget, I said the Argentines were murderous fascists, I was right: isn't it the conquerors who decide history.There you go again ... Stop picking on the Argentines and my buddy, Kublai! :mad:

2)Most people in England are celtic in origin.I find this very hard to believe for some reason ..... :crazyeyes

This will be my last post in reply to your posts. I am getting very tired of arguing this point in a foreign language (to me) .....

Geographically England does exist but in terms of ethnicity there is very few differences between a Scot and Englishman due to mass culture and internal migration. So there is no Englishmen just people who live in the region of England.

Geographically England does dominate because it has a far larger population than any other region within the United Kingdom. But as I said before constitutionally English are less powerful than the Scots or Welsh. You've got to remember the United Kingdom is an equal union between England, Scotland, N. Ireland and Wales so nobody dominates.

Scotland is furilly anglicised speaking English. As for Wales, welsh still exists due to appeals made to Queen Victoria, she the pleaded to Parliament to make the changes necessary.

As for the Celtic thing, if you know British history well you would relise a few celts ever made it Britain. Britain previously was of an earlier Mother Earth worshipping people-the ancient name for the British Isles was Albion. We the Albions were highly influenced by the improved agriculture etc. that just like people today speaking english we became celtic speakers. We later lost are past and became furilly "celticised" so we became Celts.

Anyway, most people have some celtic blood as they were the dominant people in the past and now that so much internal migration happened most people have a bit of Irish or Scot or Manx, or Welsh in them. Celtic culture is effectively a lie when it says people in these areas are exclusively Celtic, they're just a mixture of ancestry as people in England.

The "Celts" have no problem with the United Kingdom as are Royal Family are distantly related to the original celtic kings of Scotland. Are Kings and Queens visit scotland and wales assisting there people in Celtic festivals like the Highland Games etc.

You mean Braveheart isn't 100% accurate? I find that hard to beleive given Hollywood's stellar record of producing historically accurate movies. After all, the Titanic DID sink. I mean, they got that right, didn't they?

Actually I'd say that Redtom is doing a marvelous job of charicaturing those same kneejerk Americans he is warning us about, right down to the bad grammer. It makes a wonderful object lesson of how it looks to blindly support your country and cause without taking a look at how things might be precieved from another perspective. Hopefully many of the Americans he refers to will read his posts and see the folly of their ways. Kudos Redtom keep up the good work.

Originally posted by redtom
Pinoche was a murderous fascist, after all he got overthrown, so i am the conqueror;).

One of my teachers, a staunch marxist (knew my dad from the Marxist underground) lost a few friends trying to fight for communism in Chile. Pinochio, unsurprisingly, killed them, like those spaniards who were in the news years ago.

My next door neighbour is Chilean. They were reasonably well off, well educated, professionals when Allende came to power. Their business was taken from them and they left the country basically to avoid being shot.

Now, they have nothing good to say about Pinochet, but on the other hand, they have nothing good to say about the Marxists either.

/bruce

Originally posted by DingBat


My next door neighbour is Chilean. They were reasonably well off, well educated, professionals when Allende came to power. Their business was taken from them and they left the country basically to avoid being shot.

Now, they have nothing good to say about Pinochet, but on the other hand, they have nothing good to say about the Marxists either.

/bruce
Maybe what i am saying it is false, i don´t know much about Chile,
but
if i remember correctly chile has the biggest communist party of latin america -of course without counting cuba-
And the society is very divided almost in 2 half.
Many people support Allende who was socialist but he was voted in a democratic election with the people support, he wasnt a dictator, he was a democratic leftist president.
Many people say that his government wa´s very bad, but it is strongly related with the fact of the USA doing the imposible to make his government fail.
And many people support Pinochet now, he did great things for the economy of chile, this group sometimes tries to avoid
and even justifies sometimes the 10.000 victims.
And some people don´t like any of those.


Maybe you can ask to your neighbor what happened, i am really interested.
I ignored than that kinf of things happened in chile.

This happened in Argentina
My grandfather was a middle class merchant with a shop and some rooms that he rented .
When Peron came to power -he was elected, it was a democracy
he wasnt nazi-(i don´t know why so many people believe that in foreign countries)
he made lots of laws protecting and giving rights to the poor people, the peron government took the rooms of my grandfather
and gave them to the poor people without paying to my grandfather a penny.
Of course my grandfather hated Peron until his dead becouse of that,
but you can´t deny all the good things he did for the poor people.

Maybe the same happened in Chile, maybe Allende did that, but he also did great things agains the little kids malnutrition and in favour of poor people.
You always have to touch someone´s interest in these countries, and that won´t make you be loved by all the people.

I don't really have any opinion about the colonies (except for their racketeering of us some two hundred years ago), but I don't like it when the UK acts like it is still the No. 1 power in the world.

Originally posted by redtom
In fact English majority in terms of electoral power have less. Scotland and Wales have two parliaments-Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly and the British Houses of Parliament. The english, however, only have the British Houses of Parliament to appeal to.

The Welsh assembly has little actual policy making power. It's main purpose is to act as a sort of Neo-Welsh office, really, with it simply deciding how to spend the money that is allocated to it from Westminster. The Scottish parliament has limited tax raising powers, and Scotland has historically had many seperate systems from England, and still does. To conclude, Britain is far frm being a federal system, and really, The houses of parliament are still the soverign body in the country. Well, sort of.

Originally posted by redtom
Also, there is no real difference in are country in terms of ethnicity. Most, if not all British people have a bit of Celtic and Germanic in them from countless Celtic, Pict, Angle, Saxon, Jute and Viking raids. (Vikings should be classed as Germanic as scandinavia was originally home to the teutonic tribes who became Goths, Vikings, Angles etc. etc. Until they spread round most places where celts once lived.

I'm not sure exactly how widespread Celtic ethnicity is, although I'm sure that it's less than you say. Certainly in England, Celts only really held sway in Cornwall, and nowhere else.

Originally posted by redtom
Wales and Scotland are giving more per head in pounds from the government. In fact scottish are one and half times more subsidised than the English, but us English understand we can't let one place be poor and the other rich, distributing the wealth of are great nation is honourable and intelligent thing to do.

The Equation for the allocation of funds to Scotland and Wales is fossilised.

As a Northern Englander this particularly disturbs me, as I feel we get shafted the most out of the whole country. The South is given prevalence, and Wales and Scotland are dilliberately over-represented at Westminster (A compromise in the 70's to placate nationalism) and have their own representative instiutions.

If a vote for a Northern Assembly ever happens, I will be voting "Yes".

Originally posted by redtom
To hold are nation together against the savage and macabre continental Europeans.

Pardon? Have you being sniffing something?

Originally posted by redtom
So instead of think as the British as just the English of Anglo-Saxon language (that says nothing of ancestry or ethnicity).

The English language is derived from more sources I can name. Latin, Greek, Icelandic, Old high German, Old Norse, French, etc etc.

Originally posted by redtom
P.S.Nobody thinks of seperating the isles in Britain except those ****ing idiot scottish nationalists who don't understand how much there a strain on British resources, that includes my uncle. :p But the scots are vital for are nation, after all it wasn't just the English who created the British Empire and made are nation what it is.

Nationalism in Wales is mainly a cultural presevation movement, at present. Obviously, most people in Scotland wanted devolution, but those who want actual independance remains at about 25% (Possibly less), I believe.

Originally posted by redtom
PSS Singapore must have benefitted from being a British colony, after all the British built the vital port to make it one of the greatest nations in Asia.

It benefited from being contolled by a relatively stable Western nation, That took the care to build it up as a trading colony for profit.

Originally posted by redtom
Also, before some idiot American starts quoting the massively historically inaccurate "Braveheart" movie (Some historians called counter-historical or "anti-historical").

I sincerely hope nobody does use Braveheart as a history lesson. Many, regardless of citizenship probably will, though, I daresay.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
but I don't like it when the UK acts like it is still the No. 1 power in the world.

When does this ever occur? Being British, I can only say that our role recently has been involved in complying absolutely with whatever America wants or suggests, being involved with other nations in peacekeeping operations and resolving certain conflicts in Ex-colonial areas such as Sierra Leone.

I am truly sorry if we ever showed a hint of independance of thought in any matters.

Originally posted by Knight Dragon
I didn't know that. Hmmmm, so it's still part of the official name for the UK. I had apparently thought the British dropped off the 'Great' part fr 'Great Britain', going by the news and stuff, a long time ago.

"Great Britain" comes from the need to distinguish it from "Lesser Britain" (Britany) in ancient times.

Okay then, lets call it Magna Britannica! (before anyone says, I realise this was the Roman name for mid to lower England, 'Brittanica Superior')

We are really getting of the point, this thread was about the British Empire, not the South Americans, not purely England, Wales or Scotland, but the former Empire.

It may interest others however, to know that SCOTLAND boasts a majority in having many of the now in power members of Parliament having gone to school in Scotland or being Scottish and I can tell you that 'we've done a fine job!:rolleyes: '


Its pointless trying to decide just what the English language is made of. Probably best to think of a divide over former Roman territories, with Italy, Spain, Portugal and France being the 'Latin-speakers', Germany and the rest being the Germanic speakers, and us Brits being a mixture of the two.

'the savage and macabre continental Europeans.'

Funny, if you replace a few words, you get the English:D

When Mary, queen of Scots went to grow up in France, it was often the French thought of Scotland being a backward, dirty, barbaric nation and they were probably right. So what must their opinion of Wales and England have been?

Back to the Thread topic, what about the British people themselves? It seemed the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, not a good example from a nation of goodness.

George Bernard Shaw (Irish) once said :

'Englishmen will never be slaves; they are free to do whatever the government and public opinion allows them'

originaly posted by blackadder
Okay then, lets call it Magna Britannica! (before anyone says, I realise this was the Roman name for mid to lower England, 'Brittanica Superior')

We are really getting of the point, this thread was about the British Empire, not the South Americans, not purely England, Wales or Scotland, but the former Empire.

It may interest others however, to know that SCOTLAND boasts a majority in having many of the now in power members of Parliament having gone to school in Scotland or being Scottish and I can tell you that 'we've done a fine job! '


Its pointless trying to decide just what the English language is made of. Probably best to think of a divide over former Roman territories, with Italy, Spain, Portugal and France being the 'Latin-speakers', Germany and the rest being the Germanic speakers, and us Brits being a mixture of the two.

'the savage and macabre continental Europeans.'

Funny, if you replace a few words, you get the English

When Mary, queen of Scots went to grow up in France, it was often the French thought of Scotland being a backward, dirty, barbaric nation and they were probably right. So what must their opinion of Wales and England have been?

Back to the Thread topic, what about the British people themselves? It seemed the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, not a good example from a nation of goodness.

George Bernard Shaw (Irish) once said :

'Englishmen will never be slaves; they are free to do whatever the government and public opinion allows them'


__________________
The best laid plans of mice and men gang aft glea.

originaly posted by blackadder

Originally posted by Suppersalmon
originaly posted by blackadder

Was there actually a point to that?

No. It appears that the only thing it did was bring an old dead thread back and make me look through it to find nothing new. Now I've done it. Sorry to all the masses that check this thread seeing my name and thinking that an invaluable piece of wisdom awaits you. Unfortunately it does not. For the sake of the board as a whole, and me in particular, let's let this thread die.

>>The above was a paid political advertisement and does not reflect the views or opinions of this station, website, or damn near anyone for that matter<<

Just a pair of tips about Gibraltar:

Originally posted by andycapp
The resident populations in both Gibralter and the Falklands want to remain British which will be the major hurdle to these territories returning to Spain and Argentina.

Of course, it is true :) but if per example, French conquer Dover, kill English people or expell them to near cities, and settle Dover with French people, probably Dover inhabitants want to be Fench not English ;) why dont ask to people(better their descendants
:)) who lived in Gibraltar in the time of the conquest that now lives in the town of La Linea de la Concepcion?

A bit more about Gibraltar, The conquer of The Rock was a action o piracy, because England wasnt at war with Spain, in fact, fought allied with one Spanish side. It is the same if Americans had conquered Brest, Calais or Dunkirk in WW2 and after the war refused to give back to French.

Originally posted by knowltok3

>>The above was a paid political advertisement and does not reflect the views or opinions of this station, website, or damn near anyone for that matter<<

You're more right then you think, I talked to the individual (whom I cannot name for reasons of privacy) and he admitted to have not read a single word I had written down...Plus I didn't pay for him to do it!

England wasnt at war with Spain, in fact, fought allied with one Spanish side

Well, in the "War of the Spanish Succession" (1702-1713) Spanish forces were of course fighting on both sides, (to decide whether a Frenchman or an Austrian should be the next Spanish king) so Britain could of course be said to be allied to one Spanish side and yet still be at war with Spaniards. Gibraltar was held at the time by forces loyal to the French claimant, and was attacked by a joint British/Dutch naval force.
If original occupancy is more important than the current inhabitants, why not hand it back to the Morrocans, the Moors first settled there, and stayed until 1462. Britain has held Gibraltar for a longer time than the Spanish did.

Well, in the "War of the Spanish Succession" (1702-1713) Spanish forces were of course fighting on both sides, (to decide whether a Frenchman or an Austrian should be the next Spanish king) so Britain could of course be said to be allied to one Spanish side and yet still be at war with Spaniards. Gibraltar was held at the time by forces loyal to the French claimant, and was attacked by a joint British/Dutch naval force.

Yes, they were fighting against Spanish but not against Spain(the nation), it isnt the same (In WW2 Spanish fought in both sides but Spain didnt fight in the war). The problem is that when Gibraltar was conquered had to be put Archduke Charles flag and not British one, because this Anglo-Ducth fleet fought in name of Habsburg king not in their own name, just read the example of America and WW2.

Originally posted by Crazy Eddie
If original occupancy is more important than the current inhabitants, why not hand it back to the Morrocans, the Moors first settled there, and stayed until 1462. Britain has held Gibraltar for a longer time than the Spanish did.

and why to Morrocans??are Morrocans the only musilm in the world??why not to Argelia, Arabia, Egypt...??do you know which muslim tribe lived in Gibraltar??they could be berbers, arabs, slavs...and why not andalusies (muslim Spanish) and why not give it to Visigoths, Byzantins, Romans, Greek or Phoencians or better iberians that lived before....;) The difference of most of the civilizations that have ocuppied Gibraltar is that they have born in Iberia, so they can be considerated ancestors more or less, but UK was a foreign power.

Then why just demand that we hand Gibraltar back? Spain lost a lot of teritory during that war. (map below)

The reason that I chose Morocco is that the first town built at Gib was founded by the then Sultan of Morocco, Abdul Mamen in 1160. There was no large settlement of the area until then. the name of Gibraltar itself comes from an 8th century Moor, Tarik-ibn-Zeyad and is a corruption of "Jebel Tarik" (Tarik's mountain).

http://www.rootsweb.com/~wggerman/map/images/treatyofutrecht.jpg

Originally posted by Crazy Eddie
[B]Then why just demand that we hand Gibraltar back? Spain lost a lot of teritory during that war. (map below)

I know which lands was lost by Spain in this war (in fact i am making a scenario about it :))
I believe that the reason is clear:
Spain was born with the joining of Castile and Aragon, then joined Granada and Navarre, in other words, the peninsula. Naples or Belgium was conquered or heird but Gibraltar is a part of Iberian peninsula and its inhabitants were Spanish, not italians or belgicans.

I believe that is reasonable, just read words of Arnold Toynbee in 1966:

" Gibraltar? it is a thorn in Spain. Do British people like a Russian or Chinese fortress in Land End or in the Channel Islands?"

The reason that I chose Morocco is that the first town built at Gib was founded by the then Sultan of Morocco, Abdul Mamen in 1160. There was no large settlement of the area until then. the name of Gibraltar itself comes from an 8th century Moor, Tarik-ibn-Zeyad and is a corruption of "Jebel Tarik" (Tarik's mountain).

I dont know if large, but here, there was a Roman city called "Julia Calpe" that was conquered in 711, when started Muslim invasion of the Peninsula, when it was called Gebel-al-Tarik by a castle that built Tarik as you said :)

If Gibraltar was still settled by a majority Spanish population then Spain would have a very good case for reclaiming the land, but now the population would prefer to keep their seperate identity, just as the Naples or Sardinia etc would. I know that Spain has always been unhappy over the issue of Gibraltar, but a country is it's inhabitants, not just a piece of land. Would your analogy with the French taking Dover still be an issue today if it had happened 300 years ago? If Britain tried to reclaim the town now, after such a long time then we would be critisised for going against the wishes of the (hypothetical) French citizens.

I don't know about the Roman town, the only reference I've got dosn't mention it, I expect you are right.

Will you post the scenario? I'll keep an eye out for it. :goodjob:

Well, I believe that Gibraltar are very Gibraltarian (a lot of Gibraltarian dont want be Spanish or British, just Gibraltarian) because they lived in a financial paradise, if they have the same conditions that people have in Enlgand(think that they live with English salaries but with SPanish style of life that is cheaper so live better than in Britain) facts would change a lot, the Rock is very negative in all the population of the nearby towns, as Algeciras, La Linea, San Roque...because Gibraltar cause a lot contraband.

Here in Spain we are hearing that both govements (British and Spanish) are negotiating a common soverganity for the Rock and Blair said that he wanted to finish with the problem of Gibraltar What is said in UK?

Will you post the scenario? I'll keep an eye out for it. :goodjob: [/B]

Sorry but now i am finishing a scenario about Spanish Armada and I have just started to make Sucesion one(well I started it a long time ago but only as Spanish civil war,now I will make as European conflict :)), getting info abut uniforms, campapigns, choosing the map, cities....so there is nothing to show :(

Gibraltar isn't such a big news topic in the UK as I expect it is in Spain, or on the Rock itself. Most of the talks that are going on seem to be designed to ease Spanish entry into NATO and the EU, and end the restrictions that Spain puts on aircraft and shipping in the area. Of course, if Blair tries to make too much of a compromise to please the Spanish it will just annoy the Gibraltarians, then they will demand full independance to stop the talks. I can't see Spain getting sovereignty of Gib unless you send in the army and take it by force.

As for the smuggling, I would expect the EU to try to get the tax rates across Europe to the same level eventually. In Britain especially, the tax on a lot of things is so high there is a huge amount of illegally imported tobacco and alcohol here coming from mainland Europe and Eire - the tax lost on tobacco alone is said to be about £2 billion a year. I think the British government would have a lot of sympathy for Spain on thet particular issue. ;)

Originally posted by Crazy Eddie
Gibraltar isn't such a big news topic in the UK as I expect it is in Spain, or on the Rock itself. Most of the talks that are going on seem to be designed to ease Spanish entry into NATO and the EU, and end the restrictions that Spain puts on aircraft and shipping in the area. Of course, if Blair tries to make too much of a compromise to please the Spanish it will just annoy the Gibraltarians, then they will demand full independance to stop the talks.

Pardon? Spain has been a member of NATO since 1982 and a member of The EU (EEC as it was then) since 1986. Are you smoking something?

Gibraltar will never demand independance, as too many of the citizens enjoy the present setup. My guess is that as the EU becomes larger and more politicised this issue will become largely irrelevant, and will probably result in some sort of eventual handover to Spain as the benefits of remaining a British dominion diminish. Independance would leave it small and uninfluential and wouldn't guarantee that Britain would constantly back it up to the same extent it does now.

Personally, I'd be in favour of these areas returning to Spanish/Argentine, etc jurisdiction, however I feel that the actual populations must consent first. Isn't that what democracy is all about, people taking charge of their own destinies?

I'll rephrase my statement: The talks were started to ease Spains entry into NATO etc.
Although Spain applied to join NATO in 1981, it didn't become a full member until 1992, and then (because, presumably Gibraltar being a political problem) not fully integrated into the NATO Command structure. That only happened in 1999, after the talks between Britain and Spain over the future of Gibraltar started.
http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/despatches/newsid_33000/33612.stm

As the majority of Gribraltarians don't want to give up sovereignty of the town to Spain, if they see Britain as "selling out" their interests so Britain can improve it's own relations with Spain, then I can see them very easily demanding full independence. Democracy, as you point out, is people having a say in their own destiny.

Originally posted by Crazy Eddie
I'll rephrase my statement: The talks were started to ease Spains entry into NATO etc.
Although Spain applied to join NATO in 1981, it didn't become a full member until 1992, and then (because, presumably Gibraltar being a political problem) not fully integrated into the NATO Command structure. That only happened in 1999, after the talks between Britain and Spain over the future of Gibraltar started.
http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/despatches/newsid_33000/33612.stm

Sounds better. :)

Originally posted by Crazy Eddie
As the majority of Gribraltarians don't want to give up sovereignty of the town to Spain, if they see Britain as "selling out" their interests so Britain can improve it's own relations with Spain, then I can see them very easily demanding full independence. Democracy, as you point out, is people having a say in their own destiny.

There is, of course, a resolution from 1969 which guarantees no constitutional change without the consent of the inhabitants.

As I understand it, this whole thing is centered around a desire to remain under British jurisdiction. Wouldn't independance be rather self-defeating, when the inhabitants know that they can maintain the present status-quo as long as they desire to?

Well, in fact there will be a new discussion between Foriegn Ministers of Spain and UK in Febraury to get a solution for Gibraltar for this Summer.
There are three sides in Gibraltar:
* pro British, continuing in the same situation of nowdays.(the problem of this is that UK want to finish with Gibraltarian problem)
* pro independence, making and small state independent from Spain or UK as Monaco, San Marino, Lichstenstein...(this is very expanded)
* pro Spanish, Spain offer making a Automous Community with their own language (English) and goverment with special laws in the way of the other Spanish regions(it has little support)

The problem of making a referendum by Gibraltarian people about their independence is that in Treaty of Utrech said that if Gibraltar isnt under British sovergnaty must be under Spanish one, and if people of Gibraltar always said that the ROck wont be Spanish because this treaty said that Gbraltar shouldnt be returned to SPain if UK dont want it, the same argument is used by Spain to not allow the independece of The Rock.

I dont know what will happend but it is a interesting subject :)

In terms of the Falklands, I very much doubt that they would like to become part of Argentina in the forseeable future, and the citizenry have made their position on the matter quite plain, that they wish to remain British. If offered a vote on the matter, this would be expressed emphatically. So why waste the time?

Originally posted by kIndal
Well, in fact there will be a new discussion between Foriegn Ministers of Spain and UK in Febraury to get a solution for Gibraltar for this Summer.
There are three sides in Gibraltar:
* pro British, continuing in the same situation of nowdays.(the problem of this is that UK want to finish with Gibraltarian problem)

Personally, I don't think it's a terribly big problem for ther British. It's a mild, continuing annoyance, but nothing more. Certainly, in these post-Franco, EU days, the issue should be the cause of less friction and bad will between all the parties invovled.

Originally posted by kIndal
* pro independence, making and small state independent from Spain or UK as Monaco, San Marino, Lichstenstein...(this is very expanded)

I can't believe this. I firmly believe (Although I have no opinion polls of recent times to back this, although a previous referendum about the constitutional future of the rock registered enormous support for retaining the present arrangements) most Gibraltans wish to retain the status quo.

Independance would mean:

-Gibraltar would not be part of The EU - A point that is often ignored by Scottish and Welsh nationalists - The creation of an independant Gibraltar would mean a re-negtiation of entry, as effectively a new country has been created.

-Gibraltar would be left as a small, isolated place sandwhiched between Africa and Spain. It would, effectively be more prone to bullying by Spain and Britain would not be able to support it diplomatically in the same way that it does now.

Originally posted by kIndal
* pro Spanish, Spain offer making a Automous Community with their own language (English) and goverment with special laws in the way of the other Spanish regions(it has little support)

I believe this view is almost non-existant amongst the population.

The British Foreign Office must share a small part of the blame for the Falklands war, which is not to in anyway absolve the brutal Argentinian regime that launched the war.

The British Foreign Office were less than subtle about their desire to be rid of the 'problem' of the Falklands for many years in the lead up to the war and ensured that the Argentines got all the wrong signals - namely that Britain didn't really want the Falklands and would not do anything in response to a take over.

The Foreign Office were quite contemptuous of the views of the Falklanders and were exploring all sorts of ways of discreetly off-loading the Falklands through 'leaseback', 'joint sovereignty' (ring a bell) etc. If the various Argentine regimes had been willing to accept a staged handover of the Islands that these proposals implied, the Falklands would in all probability be Argentine now.

The reason that I raise this is that I noticed in the newspaper yesterday that Britain and Spain are close to agreeing on joint sovereignty for Gibraltar. No one should be under any allusions as to where this is heading.

I will be very suprised if the Gibraltarians have the final say on their own fate - the track record of the British Foreign Office is not on their side.

I've heard that story too. The FO has a long, long history of having its own policy regardless of whatever government was in charge.
Supposedly the Gulf war started in much the same way, with some unguarded comments by a diplomat (American? Not sure)during an official function that seemed to imply that the Western govs. were not too concerned about Iraq's claim to Kuwait. The rest, as they say, is history.

I thought this post was about the British Empire and not should Britain give back Gibraltar.

I think that Gilbraltar should remain British if they want too because it is a bit wrong to change a place's nationality without their consent (modern-day wrong). I don't see why the Spanish are so bothered by Gilbraltar, I mean that have had nothing but bother with the Basque (could be spelt incorrectly) region. Especially since Europe is moving in the direction of becoming a superstate therefore making who owns what irrelevant. Anway, I thought it was up to the monkeys.

In the 1980's (I think) there was a referendum on Gibraltar to decide what the future of Gibraltar was. 11 people voted (though these were believed to be accidents or concillitory) to become a part of Spain out of about 10,000 and two thirds wanted to remain a part of the British Empire.

SO SHUT UP ABOUT GIBRALTAR, ITS GETTING BORING!!!

In the 1980's (I think) there was a referendum on Gibraltar to decide what the future of Gibraltar was. 11 people voted (though these were believed to be accidents or concillitory) to become a part of Spain out of about 10,000 and two thirds wanted to remain a part of the British Empire.
If 2/3 voted to be part of the British empire and 11 people voted to be part of Spain, what did the other people vote for?

Back on topic, I think that the majority of the British colonies benefitted from British rule. We introduced a system of law, adminstration organisations, the english language, football and the love of a good cup of tea. Places such as Hong Kong have benefitted greatly. Also considering how the other colonial powers treated their possessions then I think the British colonies were even lucky. This is not to say that imperialism is a good thing and should be encouraged, although Simon Darkshade may disagreed. However considering that any good part of the world was controlled by a European power (at one time or another), I think a British colony benefitted the most.

Originally posted by MrPresident

If 2/3 voted to be part of the British empire and 11 people voted to be part of Spain, what did the other people vote for?

To throw off the cruel yoke of British oppression, of course! ;)

Back on topic, I think that the majority of the British colonies benefitted from British rule. We introduced a system of law, adminstration organisations, the english language, football and the love of a good cup of tea. I think America took the best three out of that group. ;) Places such as Hong Kong have benefitted greatly. Also considering how the other colonial powers treated their possessions then I think the British colonies were even lucky. This is not to say that imperialism is a good thing and should be encouraged, although Simon Darkshade may disagreed. However considering that any good part of the world was controlled by a European power (at one time or another), I think a British colony benefitted the most.

I can agree with you on your points. There is no imperialism I would have preferred my ancestors to have thrown off than a British one. ;)


Sorry, I'm in a wierd mood this morning. :crazyeye:

Does anyone know the full history of the 'Great Hedge of India' ?

What (I think) I know of it is this. A hedge was planted that streched pretty much the whole length of India - no mean feat. This hedge was not some pleasant tourist attraction, but fully 15 to 20 feet (4m - 6m) thick with a guard house positioned every mile or so and gatehouses slightly less frequently. The hedge was composed of dense, sharp and entirely unfriendly flora. This hedge was not, as you might suppose, a defence against invasion but a mechanism of customs enforcement. The British wanted to tax something, so charmingly enough, we chose salt because in a climate like India's without salt you were very quickly very dead. The gatehouses in the hedge allowed customs policies to be enforced and tax revenue to be gained from salt transport.

Two things are apparent to me from this. Firstly, no matter what benefits the British brought with their Empire, we also bought a lot of hardship and injustice. Secondly, if an extraordinarily massive hedge the majority the length of India that existed less than 150 years ago can have completely disappeared from the landscape, and more importantly, hardly anyone has ever heard of it, just how complete are the versions of history that we are all quoting to fill threads like these ?

History is, quite clearly, bunk.

To throw off the cruel yoke of British oppression, of course!
I find this very offensive. Our cruel oppression should not be compared to eggs, in any context.
I think America took the best three out of that group
But you lot are rubbish at football.
I can agree with you on your points. There is no imperialism I would have preferred my ancestors to have thrown off than a British one.
I don't know about that. I can't wait till Britain throws off American imperialism.;)

Originally posted by Wild Weasel
Does anyone know the full history of the 'Great Hedge of India' ?

What (I think) I know of it is this. A hedge was planted that streched pretty much the whole length of India - no mean feat. This hedge was not some pleasant tourist attraction, but fully 15 to 20 feet (4m - 6m) thick with a guard house positioned every mile or so and gatehouses slightly less frequently. The hedge was composed of dense, sharp and entirely unfriendly flora. This hedge was not, as you might suppose, a defence against invasion but a mechanism of customs enforcement. The British wanted to tax something, so charmingly enough, we chose salt because in a climate like India's without salt you were very quickly very dead. The gatehouses in the hedge allowed customs policies to be enforced and tax revenue to be gained from salt transport.

Two things are apparent to me from this. Firstly, no matter what benefits the British brought with their Empire, we also bought a lot of hardship and injustice. Secondly, if an extraordinarily massive hedge the majority the length of India that existed less than 150 years ago can have completely disappeared from the landscape, and more importantly, hardly anyone has ever heard of it, just how complete are the versions of history that we are all quoting to fill threads like these ?

History is, quite clearly, bunk.

I've read a massive book on British India called (wittily enough):
"Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India" and I can't honestly remember reading anything about how they organised the Salt Tax with a hedge. Being the British, we would have made a steel construction.

Wild Weasel makes a good point about which history we are reading as people forget just how subjective history really is. Generally all English speaking nations, Britain, Canada, USA etc. read the Whig version of history, that follows:
>All governments in Catholic nations are oppressive and do exactly what the popery says
>All things lead to greater things
>Imperialism is excusable
This is just the jist of it.
Currently history is having a revival in Britain as this theory constantly being contested over

Also, back to the discussion over Scotland.
The Act of Union (1707) between England (+Wales) and Scotland was just as contested over in England as it was in Scotland. This union was by no means perfect as it gave Scotland quite a few powers, it's own law system, education etc. In fact, you could say the Union is no more weaker than between EU nations.

Also before people start going on about the Jacobite revolts being the last fight for independence. They were by no means a independence movement. The old/young pretender wanted the British throne not the Scotish one. It was one of the last War's of Religion in Europe.

PS. Did any one hear about the American Smart missile, so smart in mid flight realised all war was futile and crashed into the sea!

Originally posted by redtom


I've read a massive book on British India called (wittily enough):
"Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India" and I can't honestly remember reading anything about how they organised the Salt Tax with a hedge. Being the British, we would have made a steel construction.



I went off to do a bit of research - should have done it before my first post to be honest. I came up with a book by Roy Moxham on Amazon.com - this section is from their description of it

--- Moxham, a British library conservator, chanced one day on a book describing a giant hedge, running east to west, 2,500 miles long and six to 12 feet thick, and guarded by 12,000 men, in British India in the late 19th century. This "eccentric enterprise... a quintessentially British folly," as Moxham calls the hedge, was designed as a customs border, in particular to collect the salt tax that was so oppressive to India's poor. Gandhi, who called the salt tax "the most inhuman poll tax that ingenuity of man can devise," led a march in 1930 to illegally make salt from the sea, which signaled the beginning of his nonviolent struggle for India's independence from the British. ---

So, 2500 miles long, 12 feet thick, a significant factor in Gandhi becoming Ghandi and it doesn't even appear in books such as the one redtom mentioned. And it was still there in 1879.

This thread has seen a lot of reasons for various actions being quoted back and forth - you did that so we did this. It just seems to me that we never have the full picture - and often very significant factors indeed are missing from our own personal viewpoints.

Originally posted by MrPresident

I find this very offensive. Our cruel oppression should not be compared to eggs, in any context.

Dry Bitish wit, right? Am I getting better at spotting it? ;)

But you lot are rubbish at football.

That was not one of the three best in your group of 5. We aren't too accomplished at cricket either, but somehow we manage to carry on with our daily lives. ;)

I don't know about that. I can't wait till Britain throws off American imperialism.;)

Won't take long now, the Germans and the French almost have you fully in their trap ;)

I believe the British Empire was a "Good" empire. I think the
British developed a sense of purpose in "raising the level of
civilization in the world" and tried to govern responsiblity at
the peak and during the decline of the empire.

We judge the 19th century Leadership according to our moral
standards. Even the most highly placed people in that time didn't
have the education and world knowledge a grade 12 student has today. (Winston Chruchill, My Early life).

People from ex-British colonial territories can say things have
gotten better since they achieved independance. This is true,
Worldwide things have gotten better since 1840. However
would their own rulers if allowed to continue in office have
provided better government and a better life for the ordinary
citizen? I don't think they could or would have. The British could call on vast resources of capital, Industry and the latest in
technology to apply to their problems in the 1800s and
early 1900s. Far greater resources than any local Prince or
King could call on.

Abuses can be cited when the British ruled, In Canada
the Mackenzie Rebellion occured due to corruption. In
India the Salt tax, In America The Tea Tax!. The Irish Famine.
These abuses still go on worldwide today. Can you think
of a single year were the (fill in country name here) government was not caught up in some sort of scandal?

Compare the nations today, that were in empire to the nations that were not ,there is quite a differience.

I don't think so. The English colonization didn't "raise the level of the civilization in the world", just forced the English civilization on the other people for the sake of the English' own economical raise.
Famines, bloody genocides and revenges followed each other, from Egypt to South Africa, from Ireland to Australia. Why were rebellious movements against the British administration constant in all their colonies? I suppose not because English raised their level of civilization. Rather they rebelled because the massive exploitation of their workpower and resources. Or because they tried to reachieve their lost independence. Maybe because they were full with the arrogance and racial hatred of the colonial officers. The English quelled these rebellions with the greatest cruelty, and revenged on the families of the rebellers to terrorize the people of that colony. On some territories the British tried to kill the entire pre-British population. Tasmania, Australia, New Zealand are good examples for this. But the British colonization tested the first concentration camps on the Boers too (not to find an excuse for the slave-trader and genocider Boers. British didn't traded with slaves because they forced entire nations to work for British for free.
No hurting intended on any British. I think that every colonizating empire did these deeds of horror. The difference is only the number of the slain people, and the numbers are differents because the colonizators' technical advancement was different. If, for example, Spanish had machine guns, they'd killed way more people as they really did. I would only show that empires are never good and English Empire wasn't exception too.

Originally posted by Caranamrta
I don't think so. The English colonization didn't "raise the level of the civilization in the world", just forced the English civilization on the other people for the sake of the English' own economical raise.
Famines, bloody genocides and revenges followed each other, from Egypt to South Africa, from Ireland to Australia. Why were rebellious movements against the British administration constant in all their colonies? I suppose not because English raised their level of civilization. Rather they rebelled because the massive exploitation of their workpower and resources. Or because they tried to reachieve their lost independence. Maybe because they were full with the arrogance and racial hatred of the colonial officers. The English quelled these rebellions with the greatest cruelty, and revenged on the families of the rebellers to terrorize the people of that colony. On some territories the British tried to kill the entire pre-British population. Tasmania, Australia, New Zealand are good examples for this. But the British colonization tested the first concentration camps on the Boers too (not to find an excuse for the slave-trader and genocider Boers. British didn't traded with slaves because they forced entire nations to work for British for free.
No hurting intended on any British. I think that every colonizating empire did these deeds of horror. The difference is only the number of the slain people, and the numbers are differents because the colonizators' technical advancement was different. If, for example, Spanish had machine guns, they'd killed way more people as they really did. I would only show that empires are never good and English Empire wasn't exception too.

If yoy mean the British empire, as many scots, welsh and irish worked for the Irish. The Captain George who died in Sudan for the empire, Sir Michael O'Dwyer: India, to name a few.

British Empire according to the famous historian, Norman Davies, is a paternal one. Unlike the macabre and savage European :lol: we tended to be fatherly to the conquered people. In fact before the Indian Mutiny, Britain tended to employ local inhabitants for the running of the Empire, though this tended to happen in are Indian Empire.

Famines etc. These famines, bloody genocides and revenges happened before we came and tended to decrease as we improved the farming tecniques.

The empire wasn't in a constant state of revolt at any point. Because the inhabitants were too ill educated to know better. This was until end of the 19th century when missionary schools and the like were producing there first generation of educated people. Before you, mention it the Indian Mutiny, was army mutiny after fears by the highly religious soldiers that the guns were oiled with pig and cow fat. (Cow being sacred by Hindu's and pig not a exactly being halal).

Killing local inhabitants, it was not imperial doctrine to kill local inhabitants, the killing of local inhabitants tended to be done by farmers that emigrated to parts of the Empire.

The concentration camps are indeed a blot on the British imperial horizon. It was terrible what we did, but not to defend are actions. Britain had been promised to govern over the Boer land after we defeated the aggressive Zulu's.

Compared with the likes of the Spainish, Portuguese or the French, the British empire was a better empire. But like all empires it failed so there must be something wrong with are empire.

PS. I know we still, kinda, have an empire.

That was not one of the three best in your group of 5. We aren't too accomplished at cricket either, but somehow we manage to carry on with our daily lives.
We also survive without being too good at cricket.
Won't take long now, the Germans and the French almost have you fully in their trap
I don't think the Germans and French have a trap, they are too busy arguing about which country is more important. Either way it doesn't matter because us Brits will slowly come in the back door. Our plan all along was to let the Europeans think they have everything under control and think us Brits were not really interested. Then when everyone thinks we have turned our backs of Europe, we will strike. Then goodbye EU, hello United States Of Britain.
Why were rebellious movements against the British administration constant in all their colonies?
Then why did it take so long for the colonies to gain their independence? Why was this usually done in a peaceful way? And why are most colonies now part of the Commonwealth?

Its real that British colonization mostly wasn't as oppressive as, for example, Belgian in Zaire. But i have an other imagination about father-son relation than British had.
Many Irish, Scots and Welsh fought in the British army. Yes. They were long time ago submitted to the English (Welsh: 1244. Scotland:firstly 1171, Ireland: firstly 1169.) and they were mostly assimilated (Even in Ireland they speak English and Irish is close to extinction).
Many people from the colonies, Arabs, Indians, Birmanese (Myanmarian?), Nepalians also fought in the British army. British conscripted for example, 1.5 million people of the 10-million-populated Egypt in the first world war. They conscripted them, therefore they foughtfor their rulers. There were volunteers also. Fighting in the British army was a better alternative than dying in starvation because of raised and exclusive taxes, forced borrows.
Missionnary schools weren't also elements of the imperial doctrine. The state didn't forbade them because this was an useful tool to weaken the aborigine culture and religions and spread the British ones. But the Empire himself (or herslf, i don't know) never stressed the education of the colonies' population - for example, India's viceking Curzon said that education is the resource of rebellion, therefore he raised the tuition-fee in those few schools. Which father will hold his sons in ignorance to avoid his sons' rebellion?
The killing of local inhabitants wasn't the official doctrine of the Empire, but the Empire never made any efforts for defend the subjugated aborigines from those farmers. Sometimes a reservation was opened (for human beings!), and this was the only try to tread the problem.
The regain of the independence was done in peaceful ways in the most of the cases. When Britain was on the top of his power, they quelled all the rebellions, therefore nobody could retake the independence (only the USA, but they were technically equal with the English). The technological advance and the lots of money gave enough strength to the British to keep their colonies down. British also used the hostilities of the different nations, tribes and religions, turned them against each other. Divide et impera. This is why there is India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. When WWII weakened Britain, there was a chance of being independent, for his strongest colonies. For example, India regained the independence now.
In Africa, this liberation was because the Afro-American (Should to say so? Please forgive me if i wasnt politically correct) civilian rights movements supported the independence of these states. At this time there were "national awakenings" there, for example, in Kenya, which regained the independence by weapons. Keeping the armies in weapons ate the money of the British taxpayers. And these nations were economically and culturally lagged because the artificially slowed advancement. The British public opinion also supported the independence of these states. So these African colonies could also liberate in the 1960-70s. Of course, the boundaires between the states were the same as they were British colonies; these boundaries drawed by the divide et impera principle, and didn't cared for the ethnical conditions etc. These borders keep the advancement down for now.
Why most of the newly independent states are members of the Commonwealth? Because who aren't, receive economical disadvantage.

P.s. Indeed, a very great empire, this is! Some islands, scattered around the globe... And the barren rock of Gibraltar.

Originally posted by Graeme the mad


India: before the British came this was a large number of warring states, which were in a situation similair to that of medieval EUrope - by 1947 India was a modern powerhouse, a united country with modern infrastructure and technology. Practises such as widow burning and thuggery had been removed and the country could now become a world player - since 47 however the country has decayed due to bad government which rested too much one on family.



Be very, very happy that only a couple of Indians know that you have made this statement.:mad:


Frankly the British could'nt care less about Indians. I agree there were a couple of good administrators, but by and large the British treated us like dust.
:(

Indians were disbarred in several sections of the city and they could not hold high governmental posts!!

You talk about govts., the British let 10 million:eek: people starve to death in the famine in 1899!!!

The reason why we can become a world player is because WE Indians put in blood sweat and tears into our country.

WE Indians developed and maintained our country and WE Indians decided to make the changes ourselves!!

Besides thanks to the Brilliant plan of the British to agree to partition, 2-3 million lives were lost during partition and neother India nor Pakistan have benefitted from being apart!!

Originally posted by allhailIndia


Be very, very happy that only a couple of Indians know that you have made this statement.:mad:

Why? Should he fear assassination? If your going to be active on
a board were most posters are westerners, you better get used to a concept called FREEDOM of SPEECH. If you don't like it
disprove it, but keep your threats to yourself.

Frankly I agree with it, so posting it again

India: before the British came this was a large number of warring states, which were in a situation similair to that of medieval EUrope - by 1947 India was a modern powerhouse, a united country with modern infrastructure and technology. Practises such as widow burning and thuggery had been removed and the country could now become a world player - since 47 however the country has decayed due to bad government which rested too much one on family.

On another point

Besides thanks to the Brilliant plan of the British to agree to partition, 2-3 million lives were lost during partition and neother India nor Pakistan have benefitted from being apart!! [/B]

The Muslins wanted their own country and had as much
right to it as the Hindus. Put the blame here its belongs.
You could have talked to each other, you CHOSE to kill
each other and blame the British .




[/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Ozz


Why? Should he fear assassination? If your going to be active on
a board were most posters are westerners, you better get used to a concept called FREEDOM of SPEECH. If you don't like it
disprove it, but keep your threats to yourself.


Blood lust ..got carried away.... sorry:rolleyes:


Frankly I agree with it, so posting it again

India: before the British came this was a large number of warring states, which were in a situation similair to that of medieval EUrope - by 1947 India was a modern powerhouse, a united country with modern infrastructure and technology. Practises such as widow burning and thuggery had been removed and the country could now become a world player - since 47 however the country has decayed due to bad government which rested too much one on family.
[/QUOTE]

Coming from an Englishman that's a bit rich especially about the one family part as you have been accepting the one family as your leaders for over 200 years!!:rolleyes::king:

Besides all that crap about modern infrastructure was pure BS anyway since all the British left behind was only because they could'nt take it with them and was not made from the "milk of human kindness"!!:p

The practises of Sati and Thugee(correct terms to be used BTW) were removed because of the pressure of Indian intellectuals who saw that some administrators were willing to work for the welfare of the people :goodjob: :king:


On another point


The Muslins wanted their own country and had as much
right to it as the Hindus. Put the blame here its belongs.
You could have talked to each other, you CHOSE to kill
each other and blame the British .

[/QUOTE]

Of course, every petty king and prince with a village to call his own wanted a country, should the British have obliged them:eek:

Besides, it was British policy to play one community against the other. Why else would two communities who had coexisted for over 400 years suddenly start killing and raping for no reason!!:mad: :mad:

You talk nonsense about Hindus and Muslims not talking as Gandhi and Nehru met Jinnah several times to try and settle the matter of secession without partition and even made generous concesions ot him.


All I ask is that somebody whose knowledge of Indian history does not extend beyond the Indian War of Independence 1857, the Black hole of Calcutta and Indian Independence, 1947 should not talk about "the boon of British of Rule" in India to someone who has studied it for 5 years.

Besides all that crap about modern infrastructure was pure BS anyway since all the British left behind was only because they could'nt take it with them and was not made from the "milk of human kindness"!!
Are you saying that India didn't benefit, in terms of physical infrastructure, from British rule? Who built the railways etc? It doesn't matter whether or not the British did it out of human kindness or not. What matters is that India had real benefits from British rule and you should not completely ignore it.

Originally posted by MrPresident

Are you saying that India didn't benefit, in terms of physical infrastructure, from British rule? Who built the railways etc? It doesn't matter whether or not the British did it out of human kindness or not. What matters is that India had real benefits from British rule and you should not completely ignore it.

I accept that the Railways were important, but the topic of this thread seems to imply that the British were such angels that their heart melted at the sight of poor peasants carrying loads and travelling on foot that they decided to help ease that burden with railways.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Surely you should be exmining the results of what happened due to Empirical rule, not the hazy intentions which you may wish to attribute to the British of that era.

From your tone, Allhailindia, you seem to be all upset because the British didn't arrive and start handing out freebies and invititations for house swapping holidays.

Give me a single example of this altruistic behaviour that you seem to think that India deserved, and I'll give you a thousand examples of how human beings really treat each other.

Another point:

Quote:
>Besides, it was British policy to play one community against the >other. Why else would two communities who had coexisted for >over 400 years suddenly start killing and raping for no reason!!

Err, do you really believe that? What the Brits threw some sort of amphetamine into the village soup and brother turned against brother - yeah, right.

To summarise, as already has been done on this thread, the Empire was a commercial project, and a fantastic success. Never tried to be more, never tried to be less. Fact is that it left some countries in a bit of a state, but improved things too. At least we weren't the Hun who slaughtered people in their thousands for a laugh, or because someone wouldn't shag Attila.

Many people don't realise how expensive the keeping of the Empire became in it twilight years.

Something a lot of books misout about the Empire, was how economy was boosted by letting go of are Empire. The British economy rose (real GDP) 3% each year (1951-1973) was during decolonization, the highest since the early Victorian era.

The only conclusion is that economically "the Empire was more burden and benefit". So who was making the money in the Empire? - I honestly don't know. Any ideas?

P.S. Quote was taken from "The Isles: A History" by Norman Davies who took the quote from Charles Feinstein, "The End of Empire and the Goldern Age." in P. Clarke, C. Trebilock eds. "Understanding Decline: Perceptions and Realities of British Economic Performance". p229.

JoeM - I think you'll find AllHail would have been quite happy if the British had never turned up, altruistic or not.

While there had not been total harmony and light between the Muslim and Hindu (and Sikh!) communities before we arrived, we didn't help matters, and Mountbatten (the last Viceroy of India) agreed to Partition for some possibly underhand reasons (there are various tales around this which I won't go into - partly 'cos I can't remember all the details). Also, we were pretty much directly responsible for the current mess in Kashmir, and we sold the Sikhs down the river by not allowing an independent Punjab (their homeland).

As redtom mentioned, the Empire was not a fantastic commercial success - the effective bancruptcy of the UK government post WW2 was probably more important in our decisions to retreat from Empire than any moral or political considerations (despite Gandhi, Nehru, Kenyatta and all the rest). Some people made a lot of money from the Empire, but then you could say the same about the Holocaust (hello IBM) and you wouldn't say that was a good thing. Britain never wanted an Empire - we just wanted markets to sell our goods - but to preserve those we acquired an Empire 'in a fit of absence of mind' and then had to justify having it when it went against all the principles of British political thinking.

As for the railways and other 'benefits' of British rule, do you really think the Indians would never have built those themselves? Plenty of countries which were never British colonies seem to have managed quite well on their own.

And I've got to agree with AllHail's original assesment of Graeme's comment - absolute bloody rubbish, and deeply offensive at that. And I speak as a white Briton who has done alright out of Empire. And Ozz - it's not just 'Westerners' that have and respect free speech - democracy is probably the one cast iron benefit that India did receive from us.

Supernaut, I agree with most of what you're saying but my point exactly is that the Brits *did* show up. No-one has or could ever survive in isolation, the Aboriginal people were the last example to my knowledge of that, but eventually they were 'discovered'.

You can't expect human beings to behave in this ideological fashion, and by the same metre you cannot measure the British Empire against it.

We can make believe a world where the peoples of the indian sub-continent were never touched by anyone all day long, but this was not, and never could've been, the reality.

As for commercial success unless I'm completely mistaken, the East India company was a rather impressive venture.

Bear in mind that I'm not sayig that the British Empire *was* a force for good...

Not yet anyway ;-)

Originally posted by allhailIndia

Besides, it was British policy to play one community against the other. Why else would two communities who had coexisted for over 400 years suddenly start killing and raping for no reason!!:mad: :mad:

If they weren't killing and raping each other when they British
arrived, the British could not have conquered India, by playing
them off against each other. And as soon as the British left
they were right back at it.


You talk nonsense about Hindus and Muslims not talking as Gandhi and Nehru met Jinnah several times to try and settle the matter of secession without partition and even made generous concesions ot him.


He wouldn't accept their "generous concessions" so they started
a blood bath.


All I ask is that somebody whose knowledge of Indian history does not extend beyond the Indian War of Independence 1857, the Black hole of Calcutta and Indian Independence, 1947 should not talk about "the boon of British of Rule" in India to someone who has studied it for 5 years.


Keep on studing, If you work REAL hard at it you might just
get a clue.

Originally posted by JoeM
Supernaut, I agree with most of what you're saying but my point exactly is that the Brits *did* show up. No-one has or could ever survive in isolation, the Aboriginal people were the last example to my knowledge of that, but eventually they were 'discovered'.

You can't expect human beings to behave in this ideological fashion, and by the same metre you cannot measure the British Empire against it.

We can make believe a world where the peoples of the indian sub-continent were never touched by anyone all day long, but this was not, and never could've been, the reality.

As for commercial success unless I'm completely mistaken, the East India company was a rather impressive venture.

Bear in mind that I'm not sayig that the British Empire *was* a force for good...

Not yet anyway ;-)

No-one's saying that the Indians lived or should have lived in isolation - the French and Portugese turned up the same time as the Brits, and the Mughals had been there for a while before hand. Like every other part of the Eurasian landmass, India has been well fought over.

What we are saying is that the British Empire wasn't altruistic, and you seem to agree. We are not saying it should have been altruistic - but other people are, trying to justify it as a good thing. It was an Empire, and therefore based on exploitation of the subject peoples. As indeed was the Mughal Empire which we replaced.

As for the East India company - it had some good periods but I don't think it was a particularly succesful trading company. Though its success in conquering a highly civilised, militarised and wealthy sub-continent with a handful of men is one of the most impressive achievements of European civilisation. (Note, I don't mean to say that it was a good thing, just impressive.)

Ahah, so now we get to the crux of the arguement. Altruism is not neccessary for the Empire to have been a good thing. If I leave a tenner on the floor because I'm too rich to pick it up, the person who finds it will benefit - a good thing, without altruism.

Now maybe I'm translating a 'force for good' to just 'a good thing', basically because I don't believe in forces for good or evil, but this then removes the need for posting about how nasty the British were - It becomes irrelevant, the result is what we are examining.

Oh and before you say it, no the end doesn't always justify the means!

Haven't been to India yet myself, is there much still standing from colonial rule? The Raffles Hotel in Singapore when I was there was a smooth reminder of those days.

Originally posted by Supernaut
JoeM - I think you'll find AllHail would have been quite happy if the British had never turned up, altruistic or not.

While there had not been total harmony and light between the Muslim and Hindu (and Sikh!) communities before we arrived, we didn't help matters, and Mountbatten (the last Viceroy of India) agreed to Partition for some possibly underhand reasons (there are various tales around this which I won't go into - partly 'cos I can't remember all the details). Also, we were pretty much directly responsible for the current mess in Kashmir, and we sold the Sikhs down the river by not allowing an independent Punjab (their homeland).

As redtom mentioned, the Empire was not a fantastic commercial success - the effective bancruptcy of the UK government post WW2 was probably more important in our decisions to retreat from Empire than any moral or political considerations (despite Gandhi, Nehru, Kenyatta and all the rest). Some people made a lot of money from the Empire, but then you could say the same about the Holocaust (hello IBM) and you wouldn't say that was a good thing. Britain never wanted an Empire - we just wanted markets to sell our goods - but to preserve those we acquired an Empire 'in a fit of absence of mind' and then had to justify having it when it went against all the principles of British political thinking.

As for the railways and other 'benefits' of British rule, do you really think the Indians would never have built those themselves? Plenty of countries which were never British colonies seem to have managed quite well on their own.

And I've got to agree with AllHail's original assesment of Graeme's comment - absolute bloody rubbish, and deeply offensive at that. And I speak as a white Briton who has done alright out of Empire. And Ozz - it's not just 'Westerners' that have and respect free speech - democracy is probably the one cast iron benefit that India did receive from us.


This honesty was what most Indians respected in British and I doff my hat to you sir:goodjob: :goodjob:

As I mentioned before that though the British Empire was never a force of good, there were some individuals who genuinely cared about the welfare of their subjects. Alas, these were few and far between.:(

And yes I must say that we Indians have benefited from the democratic values, that somehow filtered into our society despite a lack of it politically:D

Originally posted by JoeM


Haven't been to India yet myself, is there much still standing from colonial rule? The Raffles Hotel in Singapore when I was there was a smooth reminder of those days.

We do have a few reminders from colonial times. Why Churchill lived in Bangalore around the 20's and his cigars came from a small district in Tamil Nadu, Trichinopoly if I am not mistaken.

The only physical remiders we have left are the statues of Queen Victoria and King George IV(?) in Cubbon Park, the old houses in the Eastern Part and the Cantonment part of the city and the sewer systems in some part of the city(I am serious:eek: ;) )

MOst of the older buildings have gone before the sledgehammer and wrecking ball:( , but the more famous ones will be found in almost every major Indian city and town.

Originally posted by JoeM
Ahah, so now we get to the crux of the arguement. Altruism is not neccessary for the Empire to have been a good thing. If I leave a tenner on the floor because I'm too rich to pick it up, the person who finds it will benefit - a good thing, without altruism.

Now maybe I'm translating a 'force for good' to just 'a good thing', basically because I don't believe in forces for good or evil, but this then removes the need for posting about how nasty the British were - It becomes irrelevant, the result is what we are examining.

Oh and before you say it, no the end doesn't always justify the means!

Having dealt with the altruism point (I hope :) ) we can get back to the original subject - was the British Empire a good thing. To my mind the only reason you could say it was is if the majority of our subject peoples were better off after we left than they would have been without us. While it is impossible to run history as an experiment, changing one thing to see what happens, I think it is fair to say that the majority were not better off. While a number of people benefited from exposure to our systems of democracy, education and government, in general we left behind states which were not particularly viable - even if you look at all the problems that a relative success story like India has had since we left, it does not say much for the White Man's Burden of 'civilising the natives'. When you look at people like Idi Amin, it makes me ashamed of my country. Add to that all the post-colonial meddling we've done, and the fact that our inability to adjust to the loss of Empire has prevented us from playing a full role in Europe, and I don't think a few hundred miles of railroads and some statues really weighs heavily in our favour.

Having said that, I do not feel the need to apologise for Empire, but I do feel we have a responsibility to help our ex-colonies. What annoys me about this subject is that the Empire, despite being one of the most important in history, is not taught in our schools. People get so emotional about it that they feel you are either a raving right winger if you support it, or it is too shameful to talk about. I think it is an important part of who I am, and it can't be doing our country any good if our children know more about the Roman Empire than the British. Also, the large number of children who are descended from recent immigrants would probably benefit from knowing why they are here. They could also realise that they are the children of two great civilisations, rather than feeling like dispossed orphans, as so many do.

Rant over.

Originally posted by allhailIndia



This honesty was what most Indians respected in British and I doff my hat to you sir:goodjob: :goodjob:

As I mentioned before that though the British Empire was never a force of good, there were some individuals who genuinely cared about the welfare of their subjects. Alas, these were few and far between.:(

And yes I must say that we Indians have benefited from the democratic values, that somehow filtered into our society despite a lack of it politically:D

Thank you for those few kind words :) The British have always been very honest - 'There were masters and servants and servants and dogs. They taught you how to touch your cap.' As the Clash once put it.

But I prefer to look upon the decent people as role models, and try to follow their example in making up for the trouble caused by the less decent ones.

Hello people,. havent said anything on this thread o mine for a long time but I will now.

I think a lot of you are missing the point compleley - the revolutions wouldn't have happened if the British were treating their subjects in a civilised manner is one point I disagree with - in fact I think the opposite. Revolutions such as that in Ireland came about because the wealth and education brought to these places by the British allowed people to consider their situations and realise they wanted to govern themselves - which we eventually let them do. Now to the other point people are making which is annoying me - many British colonies (wide dominions aside) haven't done well for themselves after colonialism. This is not because we let them down but rather because these places wern't ready for self-goverance however under the empire they were doing well. Things in India have got worse economically since the days of Britain not better and the country split into states now threatnng each other with nuclear weapons. if however britain had stayed things would likely have been far better in the long run for these countries.

As for you allhail india with your 'WE indians' crap - get this, fi it wasnt for Britain You indians would not exist - Britain unified a large area consisting of groups of constantly warring states and made India.
You indians owe the fact that you have a state to Britain.

Originally posted by Graeme the mad
As for you allhail india with your 'WE indians' crap - get this, fi it wasnt for Britain You indians would not exist - Britain unified a large area consisting of groups of constantly warring states and made India.
.

The reason why India split up after Mughal rule was because the British interfered in political matters, even though we were ok with them as traders.

As a matter of fact, the Marathas were in the process of building a unified India, to fill up the gap left by the Mughals, from the Deccan Plateau to the Northern Plains when the British kept on supporter one ruler against another. This was especially true in the Carnatic where the British used their trickery and deceit to keep princes fighting and just when one prince sat down to make peace, they incited another to attack him.:mad:

I'll say it again as I have said before.

THE BRITISH DID NOT CREATE INDIA TO UNIFY US, BUT TO MAKE IT EASY FOR THEM FORCE THEIR RULE ON US.

Secondly, the British did not rule a haven of peace and economic prosperity BTW.:mad:
Indian farmers were always overexploited and underfed as they were wrenched dry the blatantly anti-worker policies of the British.
Millions died in a famine in 1899 and all the British could care of was the upcoming visit of a royal
:eek: :king:
Just leaving us a patchwork of roads and railroads and mills did not mean that our economic future was guarenteed
:rolleyes:
The first hydroelectric project in Asia, the Sharavati Dam, was designed and built by an Indian engineer, M. Viswesvariah with the sanction of the Maharajah of Mysore.:goodjob::king:

The great steel mills of Bihar and the cotton mills of Bombay were the result of the entreprenerual skills of the Parsis and not the British govt.:p

I fail to see how the British can claim to take credit for the "
great" economy they built in India

Originally posted by Graeme the mad
Revolutions such as that in Ireland came about because the wealth and education brought to these places by the British allowed people to consider their situations and realise they wanted to govern themselves - which we eventually let them do.

This one sentence is so earth shatteringly stupid that we can confortably ignore everything you say, safe in the knowledge that you know nothing about this subject.

The Empire was a great force for good, as all colonial empires are. There is a proper order to things that must be followed, what!
And the British are responsible for the somewhat successful economic development of India. By making sure it was not colonised by the French or someone else. ;):D

The hasty and kneejerk decolonisation has been the cause of much upheaval and ill in the former colonies: Zimbabwe would be far better as a vassal state ruled by a proper government than a pseudo-Marxist robber baron with a penchant for murder and biscuits.
When properly run, it can lead to economic benefit and good order.

This post was bought to you by the Evil Imperialists of the world. :D

Hmm yes an interesting idea, would the colonies have benefited with continued British rule? Don't know the answer to that one, but having seen a lot of ex-British colonies I know that it would have been good if we could have brought to them some more of the benefits we see in Britain to them, but would it have been possible? I believe the reason for letting them go was economic, in the long term could we have brought less corruption and better public services to them through British rule. It would be nice to think so.

But there are so many different situations aren't there?
-Singapore and Hong Kong - massive corporate/capitalist success there, may well have been worth keeping hold of to reap the seeds that were sown!

-Australia/America did fine on there own, although I believe Australia has been in reccession for a *very* long time, perhaps because they were European settlers that virtually wiped out the indigenous population.

-Africa, well don't really know the details, but I know that they have horrendous problems with corruption, and British troops are protecting Sierra Leone. Perhaps continued British rule would have enforced stability (as now in Sierra Leone) and enabled the construction/development of more efficient(!?) societies.

-Argentina, can't believe that a bunch of prostitutes and men with sticks (to use Civ-speak) beat us off in 1807!! Maybe then we could have taught them the PROPER rules of football AND how to run an economy!(Only joking, and admittedly below the belt, but they shouldn't cheat, handball and break bones so much should they?)

Okay so I'm thinking that long term rule could have brought benefits to the country, which sounds like I'm talking about altruism again, but the whole point of the Empire was basically trade routes - you can't trade diamonds with Africa if they don't know what mines are(Arbitrary example there). Setting up a low corruption, commercial society in remote parts would have been beneficial to the British Empire (Special trade rules apply, NA not invited...?).

But how much would it have cost? Too much probably, and so the reason allhail is really so upset is cos we didn't have the cash to achieve it...

Legal systems seem to have weathered independance, which is a benefit of British rule, but the fact that so many corrupt judges hand out the rulings the benefits have been lost. Accounting practises might have remedied that.

Oh, I'm an hour late for the bar that's only 30 ft from me, so I'm off.

Someone tell me where I've got it all wrong, cos I'd like to discuss it.

Originally posted by Graeme the mad
You indians owe the fact that you have a state to Britain.

Don't forget the great literally gifts

King Lear

"How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is"
"To have a thankless child!"

(I iv 285-286)

Originally posted by JoeM

-Australia/America did fine on there own, although I believe Australia has been in reccession for a *very* long time, perhaps because they were European settlers that virtually wiped out the indigenous population.


I assume you are speaking about an economic recession, if so, you couldn't be more wrong. Australia's economy has been going 'gang busters' for some years now with one of the highest rates of growth in the OECD. Australia is one of four 'Western' nations that have increased their share of the worlds wealth in the past 20 years.

Not sure how you related recession to the treatment of the indigenous population, but you need to do some homework here too. Whilst Australia's indigenous population suffered a dramatic decline after the British invasion and many forms of abuse and discrimination the current Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations are far from "wiped out".

Recent Census have shown an increase in the number of indigenous people and a higher rate of population growth for indigenous people as compared to non-indigenous.

1840's.

The British starve to death a million Irish, and force millions to flee their homes, during the so-called Potato Famine. the reality? Potatoes were not indigenous to ireland, and during the Famine huge amounts of Irish grain was exported OUT of that country. That was because English landlords controlled the land the British conquered, and, under guard, the grain was taken out of Ireland. Despite Britain's wealth, and plenty of grain in such as Canada, they did next to nothing - nothing that really mattered. Check out the infamous Corn Laws.

1840's.

British buy Chinese tea with silver. This was bad for concepts of mercantilism - the British wanted to keep their silver. So what should they trade for the tea? DOPE! Get the Indians to supply opium and sell it to the Chinese. when the Chinese faught the drug-dealing British, we had The infamous Opium War. Result? Millions of dead Chinese as a result of opium addiction.

We can talk about the slaughter of the Mtabele in Zimbabwe, among others.

BUT, as bad as the British were, they were still an improvement to the tribal chiefs in Africa. It was the British (and other WHITES) who attempted to end slavery in Africa, which was occuring long before Europeans got there. Slavery goes on right now in black Sudan. Whites are brutalized in Zimbabwe at this moment.

So, the British were horrible. Others were worse.

I find it hard to believe that 300 million or so people would have preferred colonialism to independence, especially when they hardly had rights as human beings.:p


MAybe in small islands or countries where there is little or no economy, but a friendly people, British rule would have been beneficial.

One mistake I believe that the British made while "decolonizing" some African countries was to not have some military presence, say paras or marines in the capital of these cities so that at least some stability is achieved, without the daily threat of a coup

Originally posted by andycapp


Whilst Australia's indigenous population suffered a dramatic decline after the British invasion and many forms of abuse and discrimination the current Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations are far from "wiped out".



Okay I didn't make clear what I meant: Australia is now controlled by what were once European colonists, the aboriginal society doesn't. In Civ terms, Australia has been conquered.

I can't back up my comment on economic recession, it was just an offhand comment, not related to the colonisation of Oz but the current way it is being run. Found some stuff here on recession in the 80's and 90's:
http://www.treasury.gov.au/speeches/2001/19November2001/default.asp
But it's not important to the thread of my discussion.

Further to allhail's comment about independance, I've met many (not most) Indians who think India was run better under British rule, and ditto for West Indies and African countries.

So, the British were horrible. Others were worse.
That sounds a bit like Churchill's quote about Democracy.
One mistake I believe that the British made while "decolonizing" some African countries was to not have some military presence
It would hardly be decolonising if the British kept a military force there. Anyway if a British force was needed then that country was surely not ready for independence.
I find it hard to believe that 300 million or so people would have preferred colonialism to independence
I find it hard to believe that 300 million could tell the difference.

Originally posted by MrPresident


It would hardly be decolonising if the British kept a military force there. Anyway if a British force was needed then that country was surely not ready for independence.


Sierra Leone:
From http://pub16.ezboard.com/fthequeenofspainsbeardfrm3.showMessage?topicID=57. topic

Major Debbie Noble said: ".... More troops in the parade would have sent the wrong message and given people the hope that Britain will take them on again as a colony."

Perhaps this is a good, and current, example of where continued British rule would have helped - I haven't seen any Sierra Leonians on CivFanatics to get emotional about it. Independance is only good when you can stand on your own two feet, as this country has shown.

The ex-colonial troops would have been needed in places where colonialism ended because of guerilla warfare and no real administrator or "good" leader came up to show how stable the new nation is.

In India and Pakistan it was not that necessary as the Indian Army itself was British trained and a symbol of strength and unity in the respective countries and could be called upon to restore peace in a dignified manner, in the case of riots etc.

Originally posted by Zouave
It was the British (and other WHITES) who attempted to end slavery in Africa, which was occuring long before Europeans got there.
Um... yes, slavery existed before the euros went to africa, BUT... Because of europeans, slavery became a drain on the populations of west africa, as their trade in people was on a scale far far greater than anything africans were doing before then.

As europeans developed a sense of justice (that is, deciding that maybe these darker-skinned primates were actually people), there was a shift toward ending slavery. Gov't policies soon followed this trend. However, you imply that the darkies would be happy to continue it. Tho it may have only returned to pre-euro levels and not entirely disappeared (I don't know if that's true), you simply can't claim that africans were not opposed to slavery. Europeans only get credit for ending the monster they created.

Just as the intellectual concept of anti-colonialism can be credited to europeans, it does not ignore/deny that the residents of the colonies fully opposed being ruled by foreigners - anti-slavery falls into the same category. A coastal chief is told by a newly arrived white captain that his ship will be leaving loaded with slaves, like it or not - the chief will be happy to supply neighbors to protect his own people. That does not mean he is pro-slavery.

Originally posted by JoeM


Okay I didn't make clear what I meant: Australia is now controlled by what were once European colonists, the aboriginal society doesn't. In Civ terms, Australia has been conquered.

I can't back up my comment on economic recession, it was just an offhand comment, not related to the colonisation of Oz but the current way it is being run. Found some stuff here on recession in the 80's and 90's:
http://www.treasury.gov.au/speeches/2001/19November2001/default.asp
But it's not important to the thread of my discussion.


I understand your point, but you lessen the credibility of your argument when you throw around careless comments that are obviously incorrect.

Australia suffered an economic recession in the late 80's and early 90's - that's 10 years ago, as I said the economy has been bubbling along since.

Hope these posts have been educative! :D

Originally posted by allhailIndia
The ex-colonial troops would have been needed in places where colonialism ended because of guerilla warfare and no real administrator or "good" leader came up to show how stable the new nation is.

In India and Pakistan it was not that necessary as the Indian Army itself was British trained and a symbol of strength and unity in the respective countries and could be called upon to restore peace in a dignified manner, in the case of riots etc.

Well they certainly did a good job restoring peace in a dignified manner :lol:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by allhailIndia

Why else would two communities who had coexisted for over 400 years suddenly start killing and raping for no reason!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the british plunder our country during 7 yrs of war they could assist our forefathers in rebelliona against Spain but it did not materialized they must help us ot plunder our rich culturally cities