The British Empire: a force for good

[knowltok2]

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.

 

[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.

 

[MrPresident]

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.

 

[redtom]

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!

 

[Wild Weasel]

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.

 

[knowltok2]

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

 

[Ozz]

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.

 

[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.

 

[redtom]

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 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.

 

[MrPresident]

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?

 

[Caranamrta]

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.

 

[allhailIndia]

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.


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 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!!

 

[Ozz]

Originally posted by allhailIndia


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

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]

 

[allhailIndia]

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


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!!

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"!!

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


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

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!!

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.

 

[MrPresident]

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.

 

[allhailIndia]

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.

 

[JoeM]

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.

 

[redtom]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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 ;-)