The British Empire: a force for good

[Graeme the mad]

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)

 

[Sixchan]

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

 

[starlifter]

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...

 

[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.
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. 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.

 

[Graeme the mad]

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

 

[Knight-Dragon]

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. 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.

 

[starlifter]

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 ...

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, . 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.

 

[Sixchan]

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!

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Well, we had to kick out the Stewarts, they were the most useless Royal family we ever had. (and that's saying something)
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.

 

[Sodak]

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.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

"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?

 

[Sodak]

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...

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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

 

[Knight-Dragon]

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.

 

[joespaniel]

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.

 

[adamsj]

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!

 

[knowltok]

>>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!

 

[Knight-Dragon]

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).

 

[redtom]

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

 

[Sodak]

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.