I can accept that Aborigines, Maoris, Welsh, Scottish, Native Americans, Indians and other peoples were all perfectly capable of governing themselves. But not those damn Irish. Teaching them to behave in a civilised fashion is the real "White Man's Burden."
The British Empire
- Thread starter Flying Pig
- Start date
Communisto
Condottiere
Divide and conquer doesn't just evaporate in a few decades. Imperial legacies cant be blamed for all the problems of developing countries in the post-colonial world but they sure as hell can for a lot of them.
Im sorry if what I said came of as a generalization. From my experience it is just what I find a lot of the time from talking to brits.
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
True, although in many former colonies “a few decades” doesn’t really cover it. By the same logic imperial occupation is less likely to be the main cause of strife if it was only present for a few decades.
I wasn’t saying they weren’t, although I wouldn’t necessarily agree as to what extent.
I just object to the notion expressed elsewhere here that Imperial Britain is the reserve scapegoat of any particular world problem you care to mention since it is a cop out for modern governments who are all too often exacerbating the problem or doing very little to resolve it.
Try talking to Daily Mail readers a little less
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,087
Isn't that a contradiction? South America looks bad because it wasn't "modernized" quickly enough, north America looks bad because it was?
Flying Pig said:
The Malayan Emergency had little to do with Brueni. And, I agree, it was your fault. Denying ethnic Chinese basic legal, political, and economic rights was always going to cause trouble, especially when the old legal fiction of 'they can go back to China' ceased to be realistic. Combine that with the utter failure to advance the cause of the Union and you end up with a popular Communist insurgency built around a bunch of people who didn't even have citizenship, couldn't own land and were subject to every kind of arbitary government indignity imaginable.
If there was any tribal schism between the Malays and immigrant Chinese, can you blame it on the British administration ? You don't think a little Maoist propaganda, and some inciteful demagogues had something to do with it ? The British presence there saved a precarious situation from becoming a bloodier civil war, and re-enfranchised many of the said Chinese. So that must also be their fault. Its considered a lesson in effective crisis management in most books I've read. And then there was that little incident in North Borneo...
vogtmurr said:
It was explicit British policy to deny Chinese basic civil and economic rights. They couldn't own land - so the poor amongst them squatted. They weren't afforded citizenship - so they lived under threat of deportation. They couldn't access the legal system - so they lived in the shadows. And what the hell is 'tribal' schism supposed to mean?
vogtmurr said:
Yes, because people are going to take to the jungles for years living under threat of death because some dude made an inciteful speech about Maoism in the kampong.
vogtmurr said:
They hadn't been enfranchished to begin with.
vogtmurr said:
It was under British rule...
vogtmurr said:
There were multiple incidents in North Borneo. If you want to make accusations, please do so openly.
Which was hardly just confined to North Borneo, unless I'm mistaken.
That would be the equivalent of refering to something in Angola as happening in South Africa, but I'll bite. I guess we'll know when he returns to the thread.
My bad; buggerd that up - Malaya was variously a protectorate and, in places, Crown territory. And the communists were hardly 'popular' - they were almost all Chinese (who were, granted, very much downtrodden) and there had very few Malays indeed. Even their nationalists were on our side, because they thought that if the enemy won then Malaya would enter into the Chinese sphere of influence, while at least the British stayed fairly distant from the day-to-day running of the Federation.
Yes, the initial handling of the strikes was mismanaged by colonial authorities, but those said rights had not been established yet for immigrant workers, they weren't taken away. It was my impression the princely states (Johore, Kedah, Perak etc.) also had some autonomy or influence on internal affairs, but I don't know the degree. There was a political reaction to the MCP and fear of a domino effect by the British, but you are talking about the underlying causes for the insurrection. We were I thought talking about the British handling of it in 1950s, which was certainly above par.
any situation where perceived chauvinism or disparities causes two cultures to mix like oil and water. Like the 'white' tribe and 'black' tribe in apartheid S. Africa, or for that matter between the Zulu nation and ANC. Tribal is still a commonly used term for that societal behaviour. You have to admit the average Malay was not enchanted with the MCP or MNLA.
Yes, because people are going to take to the jungles for years living under threat of death because some dude made an inciteful speech about Maoism in the kampong.
That's oversimplifying it. Why are you rolling your eyes - are you saying something like that has never happened before ?
but they were afterwards, correct ?
Primarily the Konfrontasi. It was another incident involving the British (and Commonwealth) taking some responsible action, which you seem to take exception too. If that hits close to home welcome to the party.
My accusation is against unbalanced opinions expressed here, that are in fashion, typified by "when in doubt, blame the British". I've heard some astonishing rubbish being spouted at the local University in the last 10 years that would really make your eyes roll. Any one of them would open up another thread and a bigger can of worms than this one. Mostly it has to do with the burden every ex-colonial power bears for the last hundred+ years, as judged by the present standards of intellectual elites. And as others have pointed out - it doesn't end there.
Which makes it impossible for any counter argument on the basis of the introduction of benefits such as hospitals, infrastructure, and industries. Of course there was a commercial incentive behind this, but what would you consider a more realistic alternative ?
Because there are too many convenient excuses based on the supposed sins of the past, to support a case for individual or group responsibility at betterment. Such as the reserves (with state funded housing, benefits, education and civil projects; in perpetuity) and residential schools. Nobody is interested in hearing the other side of the argument, they would rather point blame and exacerbate the divisions that already plague us. There is no reconciliation - to many it all comes down to the fact that since the 'white man took our country, they have to pay'. Outstanding claims were settled by multi-billion dollar settlements, with exclusivity to mineral rights thrown in. I find the most vocal about these topics are usually the ones most insulated from the true realities of it, which are all too familiar in my part of the country. But my reason for initially going down this road, is the suggestion that present demographics in Ontario are the result of some imposed hardships by the British? authorities, or genocidal policy, when in fact the aboriginal population has grown considerably in Canada since 1800, with a much higher rate of natural increase than any other demographic group, which makes sustainability of the programs described here questionable, as prominent economists have pointed out.
The Residential Schools were unquestionably bad. There are no redeeming qualities for them. And while the government does provide the benefits you mentioned they are almost universally awful and well below the standards of those provided to the rest of Canadians.
I am the first to say that the entitlement among many natives goes way to far, but the treatment was pretty bad historically and to this day. Personally I believe the fist step is that they need to integrate into Canadian society (note integrate, not assimilate) as the de facto segregation is a major problem.
I am the first to say that the entitlement among many natives goes way to far, but the treatment was pretty bad historically and to this day. Personally I believe the fist step is that they need to integrate into Canadian society (note integrate, not assimilate) as the de facto segregation is a major problem.
Communisto
Condottiere
That part of my post was a joke.
Im never the person to alleviate the problems of a group by blaming another. Many of the issues facing the Aboriginal community in this country cannot be sidestepped by blaming "the white man," but if you wont acknowledge hundreds of years of institutionalized racism and exploitation there cant be much of a discourse.
Have you ever talked to anybody who worked in those schools, or did the media ever present the testimony of those who ran them ? No because they are pretty much all dead. The government took a route of convenient appeasement, because it would have been impossible to sort out genuine cases of abuse from occasional routine corporal punishment, (which all schools practiced in those days). I know some native people who attended them, with mixed experiences. For some it was a home and safe haven from alcoholism and abuse in their own families, but they lined up to collect their cheques just like everyone else, and I don't blame them.
The biggest charge against the Residential School System is the submersion of their culture and language, which was forbidden. They were taught English (or French) and the faith of the church providing these services. It was coercive, but it was also believed to be consistent with a policy of integration in society (assimilation must be a subtle difference). There were penalties for white families not sending their kids to school as well. The preservation of aboriginal culture was not foremost in the minds of 19th-early 20th century policy makers and headmasters, hence the charge of 'cultural genocide'. One of the biggest problems facing these schools was underfunding. Can we expect that these early schools, isolated and scattered across the land, could cater to these cultural needs ? That was up to their families to provide, and is it not this way in a multi-cultural society today ?
As for the other services which are supposedly below par, housing is not one of them. Every family is granted a home which most lower income white families could not afford, and the band receives a budget to replace it periodically, because they are often destroyed. Even with a home provided, there is nothing preventing said family from moving to the city and receiving full living expenses and rent at the state's expense. Clearly there is some hypocrisy being swept under the carpet because it is political suicide to confront.
The government was required to provide schooling for the natives (just as the provinces were required to provide education for their non-Native populations), so I don't count providing an education into any of these considerations.
The forced removal of children from their homes and forced assimilation and punishment for using their own language or religion. I recognize the times were different in the latter respect and I won't criticize the people involved in it, but it was still a fundamental flaw in the residential schools system.
As for some children being removed from abusive situations that should be done for that reason, not to provide a better opportunity to assimilate them, and there were plenty that wouldn't have wanted to be removed from their family.
The residential schools are a black mark in Canadian history, which is largely justified by our favourite: "We ere better than the US".
The forced removal of children from their homes and forced assimilation and punishment for using their own language or religion. I recognize the times were different in the latter respect and I won't criticize the people involved in it, but it was still a fundamental flaw in the residential schools system.
As for some children being removed from abusive situations that should be done for that reason, not to provide a better opportunity to assimilate them, and there were plenty that wouldn't have wanted to be removed from their family.
The residential schools are a black mark in Canadian history, which is largely justified by our favourite: "We ere better than the US".
Similar threads
