The British Empire: a force for good

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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom