The British Empire: a force for good

[Ozz]

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!!

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.

 

[Supernaut]

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.)

 

[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!

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.

 

[allhailIndia]

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

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

 

[allhailIndia]

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 )

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.

 

[Supernaut]

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.

 

[Supernaut]

Originally posted by allhailIndia



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

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

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.

 

[Graeme the mad]

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.

 

[allhailIndia]

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.

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.
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

Just leaving us a patchwork of roads and railroads and mills did not mean that our economic future was guarenteed

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.

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.

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

 

[Supernaut]

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.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

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.

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.

 

[JoeM]

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.

 

[Ozz]

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)

 

[andycapp]

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.

 

[Zouave]

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.

 

[allhailIndia]

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.


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

 

[JoeM]

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.

 

[MrPresident]

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.

 

[JoeM]

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.

 

[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.