NationStates Jolt Archive

Here are some examples to jog your memory.


* Northern Ireland
* Palenstine
* Iraq
* Africa
* America
As mentioned by I V Stalin:
* India

Northern Ireland is self explaintory.

Palenstine was under British mandate until the 1940s (after gaining it in World War I) when the Brits pulled out and Jews created their own country much to the displeasure of the Arabs.

Iraq, after World War One, the British lumped together three diffrent groups of people who since the dawn of Islam have mostly wanted to beat the shit out of other and kill each other (except the Kurds, who just a want country...)

Africa... also self-explantory.

America is just a joke. But well they did tax and we formed our own country which is ruled by a moron and has been ruled other morons in the past, but hey, it's beats out living under the British.

DISCLAIMER:To all people of British decent or who are British. I do not hate you. I just hate the crown and the goverments past actions. As such I will name some of the great things you have given us and me.

* Our freedom
* The Beatles, The Who, The Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, The Clash and countless other British bands
* Monty Python
* People who are smarter then people here.
* Something for my ancestors to blow up (I'm Irish-American)
* Monty Python
* Monty Python
and
* Monty Python
and
* tea

Thank you.

No.

Yes! They *bleep* over my ancestors! Bloody red coats, bashing around me green kin!

You forgot to mention all the other governments that have caused the world huge problems.
The British government/crown hasn't done my ethnic/religious group any favours in the past, but it's certainly one of the better governments now. The American government is being appallingly blockish in Israel, for example.

No. However much I hate the crown and some of my (current and previous) governments' past actions, I don't think we are the source of most of the worlds problems.

No...unless you hold the UK accountable for the emergence of the USA, then by causality links, it is accountable. I hold the Empire in the utmost respect, as do I the Crown. I may detest the UK's current government, but the UK is hardly the source of the world's problems.

No, no, no, no, no!

Picking out one thing, America. You formed your own country to be fair, and you mucked it up. When you drove us out fair and square (im not denying that) you were on your own!

You cannot blame that specific one on us. I could pick together the rest of your arguments, but not right now, I am limited on time.

Yes, I am British. Yes, we did make Monty Python :p

Humans are the source of most of the worlds problems.

Just to clear it up before someone says (unless someone crept a post in) by "you mucked it up" I didn't mean you have a stupid, crap, shit, idiotic etc. country. I meant we were not accountable for whatever problems America has or has caused.

However, I do acknowledge other goverments (including mine own, past and present) have caused other problems in the world.

Though in my opinon, I still the British Empire-buliding caused much of the problems we have today.

I blame religion & greed

Minuta']No, no, no, no, no!

Picking out one thing, America. You formed your own country to be fair, and you mucked it up. When you drove us out fair and square (im not denying that) you were on your own!

You cannot blame that specific one on us. I could pick together the rest of your arguments, but not right now, I am limited on time.

Yes, I am British. Yes, we did make Monty Python :p

*thumbs up to you*

Yes/No. Some of the examples the OP points out, yes - N. Ireland, for example. But other examples aren't entirely their fault - Iraq, and most of the middle east, well, kinda. But there'd be problems there anyway, without any intervention. America, you caused your own problems, the place was perfectly fine when you kicked us out.
Africa - why blame the British? What about the French, Belgians, Portuguese, Italians, Germans...
Also, what about India - to quote...someone, not sure who...'[India was] one of the richest countries in the world when Britain arrived, and an Oxfam advert when Britain left.' We totally raped that place.

However, I do acknowledge other goverments (including mine own, past and present) have caused other problems in the world.

Though in my opinon, I still the British Empire-buliding caused much of the problems we have today.

To be honest mate, you could go on tracing things back and back and back. I blame the Romans because they forced their imperial power and culture onto us Brits...

I think the more important issue is who exactly is perpetuating these problems.

following a complex system of lay lines, as well as from reading the pockets of left over magical energies, I would say that the British government is the source of all evil in the world. This came in after WWII, when the current incarnate of evil, Adolf Hitler, as defeated. He performed the correct ceremony, and sent himself into a young 12 boy's brain..

After years of traveling about, the incarnate got tired of his constant desires of childish things, he left the boy, who later became a pope. The incarnate then traveled into the great UK, and has been mucking about in its politics for some time now. Though with all true evils, no one really notices its climb to power, because its not obviously evil, but slowly shapes things into its evil image.

while in the british government, he sends out messengers to all the world, and causes trouble where ever possible.

so, by default, the british government is to blame, since they employ the incarnate of all evil.

Hmph. The Problems in Northern Ireland are caused by a bunch of ignorant vandals and the politicians who abuse a sense of bipartite communities. Neither Britain nor Ireland are responsible for the problems there. Though recently, Blair has done a stirling job of demoralising the Unionist community.

Oxygen. Things were a lot simpler when Earth had a primarily carbon dioxide and methane atmosphere. *sigh*

Looks like so called "anti-Americanism" is nothing compared to "anti-Britishism".

Minuta']No, no, no, no, no!

You sound like Margaret Thatcher there. That's a good thing, by the way, in my opinion.

Well, the British empire was great, wasn't it. We, along with the rest of europe, invaded the rest of the world, killed their animals, stole their natural resources, we also raped their women, what fun. I'd say that pretty much makes everything in that list our fault... except... Palestine. That's the U.N.'s fault, mostly America and France's - for supplying the weapons.

Hmph. The Problems in Northern Ireland are caused by a bunch of ignorant vandals and the politicians who abuse a sense of bipartite communities. Neither Britain nor Ireland are responsible for the problems there. Though recently, Blair has done a stirling job of demoralising the Unionist community.

Ah yes, but who incorperated Ireland into their kingdom and then let it go free and kept six counties to themselves causing irate nationalists to continue attacking them.

I must say though, India isn't a problem, as far as I know...

Ah yes, but who incorperated Ireland into their kingdom and then let it go free and kept six counties to themselves causing irate nationalists to continue attacking them.
The French :D

Minuta']No, no, no, no, no!

Picking out one thing, America. You formed your own country to be fair, and you mucked it up. When you drove us out fair and square (im not denying that) you were on your own!

You cannot blame that specific one on us. I could pick together the rest of your arguments, but not right now, I am limited on time.

Yes, I am British. Yes, we did make Monty Python :p
:p

Indeed, the USA is a world on its own. In any case, to all of those of you would place all blame on Britain, I say get a clue. If it hadn't been Britain that shaped the modern world, then it would have been some other country, and things may have been even worse. To blame Britain is to ignore all other factors and that is idiotic and near sighted. If anything, we are ALL to blame. Africa is a mess...right...so why doesn't it rid of its corrupt governments and start rebuilding. Learn from the past, but don't dwell in it. The blame game is idiotic.

Really I have to say, got an issue, well here's a tissue...quintessentially british, but highly apt in this situation. :)

I think you could probably abstain the British government from all responisbility.

With regard to America the government was going through a period of temporarily increased insanity. (King George... no, I won't tell you which one. Figure it out for yourself) In addition the american colonies were the lowest taxed colonies at the time. You rebellious ingrates just wanted taxation with representation. Hello? Does the Atlantic mean nothing to you? How could we have possibly included you in parliment. It would be a bigger logistical nightmare than transporting the whole of the European Parliment between Strasburg and Brussels each year (bloody French).

With regards to Palestine - we didn't put the Jews there, the americans did. Stupid idea of a Jewish state. Most of them were dead, and besides I thought you americans were keen on separation of church and state.

And you can blame NI on the Scotish, that's what the Ulstermen are - Scotish. They're squealing infants who aren't content with the pathetic excuse for territory that God gave them. Oh, and those rebellious ingrates in the now so-called Republic of Eire. The damn catholics wouldn't want to be part of another state if it didn't exist. We even allow them to be king or queen now. See, we're not the barbarous ones.

Africa? We weren't the only one's with our hands in that continent. And besides, they were fighting each other before we arrived, not just after we left. But at least they're fighting with civilised weapons now, not silly little spears and shields.

Iraq? We did the sensible thing! If we didn't divide via the oil fields then they'd just be fighting each other who had control of which oil field. And the Shia and Sunni existed before we came along, and they existed after we left. They don't need us as an excuse to shoot each other. And besides, it's not like we were the ones that toppled the democratic government of Iran. That lies soley on the americans shoulders.

Besides, places get screwed over without our intervention. We've never laid foot in Latin America, but they ain't too utopian down there either.

And which idiots thought up the IMF and WB? Certainly not us.

Have we ever used nuclear weapons or nearly precipiated a nuclear war? Nope, not us guv.

Which idiots came up with the league of Nations, the blocked the USSR from joining and decided not join anyway? Could it be the US?

Which fools sowed the seeds for the Second World War in the treaty of Versace with their excessive demands? Oh, I think that'd be the bloody French again.

See it's not our fault, it's the rest of you that cause all the problems.

Ah yes, but who incorperated Ireland into their kingdom and then let it go free and kept six counties to themselves causing irate nationalists to continue attacking them.
So, wait... You're saying that the nationalists are absolved of blame? That's like the whole "some women deserve to be raped" argument.

Britain let Ireland go free. Some of the generally Protestant North decided to stay, some didn't want to stay. It's not Britain's fault we can't make our minds up.

I think you could probably abstain the British government from all responisbility.

With regard to America the government was going through a period of temporarily increased insanity. (King George... no, I won't tell you which one. Figure it out for yourself) In addition the american colonies were the lowest taxed colonies at the time. You rebellious ingrates just wanted taxation with representation. Hello? Does the Atlantic mean nothing to you? How could we have possibly included you in parliment. It would be a bigger logistical nightmare than transporting the whole of the European Parliment between Strasburg and Brussels each year (bloody French).

With regards to Palestine - we didn't put the Jews there, the americans did. Stupid idea of a Jewish state. Most of them were dead, and besides I thought you americans were keen on separation of church and state.

And you can blame NI on the Scotish, that's what the Ulstermen are - Scotish. They're squealing infants who aren't content with the pathetic excuse for territory that God gave them. Oh, and those rebellious ingrates in the now so-called Republic of Eire. The damn catholics wouldn't want to be part of another state if it didn't exist. We even allow them to be king or queen now. See, we're not the barbarous ones.

Africa? We weren't the only one's with our hands in that continent. And besides, they were fighting each other before we arrived, not just after we left. But at least they're fighting with civilised weapons now, not silly little spears and shields.

Iraq? We did the sensible thing! If we didn't divide via the oil fields then they'd just be fighting each other who had control of which oil field. And the Shia and Sunni existed before we came along, and they existed after we left. They don't need us as an excuse to shoot each other. And besides, it's not like we were the ones that toppled the democratic government of Iran. That lies soley on the americans shoulders.

Besides, places get screwed over without our intervention. We've never laid foot in Latin America, but they ain't too utopian down there either.

And which idiots thought up the IMF and WB? Certainly not us.

Have we ever used nuclear weapons or nearly precipiated a nuclear war? Nope, not us guv.

Which idiots came up with the league of Nations, the blocked the USSR from joining and decided not join anyway? Could it be the US?

Which fools sowed the seeds for the Second World War in the treaty of Versace with their excessive demands? Oh, I think that'd be the bloody French again.

See it's not our fault, it's the rest of you that cause all the problems.
Hear Hear! :D

Indeed, the USA is NOT a case of Americans against British, but of British colonials against the British master nation. I wonder how the USA would have fared without massive French financing...Britain was on the verge of turning the war to its favour.

Treaty of Versailles btw ;)

As for Africa, it has freedom now, what does it make of it? The same corruption and civil warring as has always besieged Africa. As a white South African I can say I feel no animosity towards the africans, yet, many of their nations have black governments, yet they are even worse off than when under the Empire. :rolleyes:

I may not be British, yet as a European I do have the greatest admiration towards both the Empire and the nation itself. Europe should be proud to count Britain amongst its members.

Treaty of Versace? LMAO
Is that where they made regulatory provisions for the manufacture of luxury handbags and fashion items?

Would be a funny concept :p Perhaps a ban on all military fashion accessories? :p

Perhaps the LMAO was unnecessary.

Hey! We came up with the whole concept of "Human rights"

The magna carte for the record

Also, what of the empire could possibly invoke pride? The hideous treatment of other races, the raping of their women, the theft of their resources, the slaughter of their wildlife? Maybe the terrible economic state we left Africa in gives you a warm, comforting tingle inside?

Very true...Britain's monarchy had almost ceded most sovereignty to Parliament by the 17th Century, well before most other nations developed "democratic" systems. The Magna Carte was also one of its major concepts.

You sound like Margaret Thatcher there. That's a good thing, by the way, in my opinion. "Every Prime Minister needs a Willie".:D

Let's start blaming Thatcher. It's the British thing to do, after all.

Hear Hear! :D

Indeed, the USA is NOT a case of Americans against British, but of British colonials against the British master nation. I wonder how the USA would have fared without massive French financing...Britain was on the verge of turning the war to its favour.

Treaty of Versailles btw ;)

As for Africa, it has freedom now, what does it make of it? The same corruption and civil warring as has always besieged Africa. As a white South African I can say I feel no animosity towards the africans, yet, many of their nations have black governments, yet they are even worse off than when under the Empire. :rolleyes:

I may not be British, yet as a European I do have the greatest admiration towards both the Empire and the nation itself. Europe should be proud to count Britain amongst its members.I'll hedge my bets and guess you aren't French. The French have never wanted us in. Bloody de Gaulle! We haboured him in WW2 and then he stabs us in the back! Twice!

The same for the Irish. We're off fighting the evil maurading armies of the Kaiser, protecting their freedom no less, and then they stab us in the back and declare independence. Can you imagine?! No wonder we let them go second time round. Just like the Americans - more trouble then they're worth.

Shush, it's all French in the end. Crappy treaty agreements, handbags, nuevo-cuisine, CAP, cheese - do the French ever make/do anything useful?. Stupid idiots can't even pronounce the alphabet properly. It's all this gaelic blood I tell you.

And seriously I think there a lot things to be admired about the Empire, but it did do some rather horrid things in its life time (I'm already lasping back into silliness and using words like 'horrid'. There's no hope for me)

I am not French (I'm South African of dutch provenance), but I do love old, monarchical France...although I do admit it can be idiotic in some cases...by aiding the USA, they helped create a "superpower" which would eclipse their own grandeur. Short-sighted, idiotic colonial rivalry. Perhaps we can one day make amend for our errors, and see England, Germany, France and Russia rule the world together through the guise of a reformed EU. All this bickering wickens Europe from within. We have created a monster ( you know which ;)), now lets put an end to it. :)

What is ironic is that the USA is creating a monster of its own in the form of China...well, let them face it off whilst we reform :)

With regard to the Irish, I believe Britain should shed its losses and rid of Northern Island. Scotland, however, is now one with England, as they share a Crown of common history. Scotland should recognise this.

"You've given us something to blow up" -

What a pathetic and irresponsible remark.

The crown and our government are not yours to hate. Yes, the current government make my skin crawl in much the same way as those that make light of terrorist atrocities - something which is, rightly, now a criminal offence in the United Kingdom.

Perhaps we can one day make amend for our errors, and see England, Germany, France and Russia rule the world together through the guise of a reformed EU. All this bickering wickens Europe from within. We have created a monster ( you know which ;)), now lets put an end to it. :)
Pfft! We Saxons are going group together and get chummy. The Franks and the Slavs and get stuffed for I care.

Why does the Crown offend most? Its hardly a political entity, but a symbol of Britain's undying dominion and heritage. I can understand hating the government, but no one has the right to hate the Crown besides the British themselves.

"Every Prime Minister needs a Willie".:D

Let's start blaming Thatcher. It's the British thing to do, after all.

Correction, it's the Parliamentary Conservative Party thing to do ;)
Good people can't blame good old Maggie. :fluffle:

With regard to the Irish, I believe Britain should shed its losses and rid of Northern Island.
Blair is trying. But Unionists don't want to go and Ireland don't want us either. Short of actually cutting it loose from any sort of government and leading it to becoming a completely anarchic state, or passing it over to the 'States, he can't do anything more.

"You've given us something to blow up" -

What a pathetic and irresponsible remark.

The crown and our government are not yours to hate. Yes, the current government make my skin crawl in much the same way as those that make light of terrorist atrocities - something which is, rightly, now a criminal offence in the United Kingdom.

Glorious thing, terrorism.

Pfft! We Saxons are going group together and get chummy. The Franks and the Slavs and get stuffed for I care.
We can still use their resources ;) Germany, Holland, Denmark, Austria, Sweden, Finland, Norway (potentially), Iceland and the UK all form a powerful force. They would be enough to override Russian and French initiatives within the EU, effectively giving all power the Saxon alliance. And remember how many of the other slavs hate Russia ;) They may be persuaded to side with the Saxonic side.

Not Iceland, they stole our cod.

Blair is trying. But Unionists don't want to go and Ireland don't want us either. Short of actually cutting it loose from any sort of government and leading it to becoming a completely anarchic state, or passing it over to the 'States, he can't do anything more.
The 'States? Hah...no...I think it will remain within the EU. The USA has already gobbled enough of the world...no more.

Not Iceland, they stole our cod.
And they produced Bjork :P :headbang:

"You've given us something to blow up" -

What a pathetic and irresponsible remark.

The crown and our government are not yours to hate. Yes, the current government make my skin crawl in much the same way as those that make light of terrorist atrocities - something which is, rightly, now a criminal offence in the United Kingdom.Excuse me? But which paper do you read? The government has gone to lengths to make sure that the making light of terrorism is NOT a criminal act. Active condoning or glorifying is. I can't remember the specific legal mumbo-jumbo, but it's there.

The 'States? Hah...no...I think it will remain within the EU. The USA has already gobbled enough of the world...no more.
Well, that's effectively his choice. Take the black smear on his nation, eject it into inevitable self-destruction or pass it off to the Yanks. Politically, his question is whether the first or last of those options will be the most damaging.

Well, must dash, it's been ever so fun speaking with you.

Glorious thing, terrorism.*giggles*

We can still use their resources ;) Germany, Holland, Denmark, Austria, Sweden, Finland, Norway (potentially), Iceland and the UK all form a powerful force. They would be enough to override Russian and French initiatives within the EU, effectively giving all power the Saxon alliance. And remember how many of the other slavs hate Russia ;) They may be persuaded to side with the Saxonic side.
We can make them honourary Saxons. :D

Yep :p Yet we know who would have all the real power ;)

Come to think of it, its a great idea. Give Germany and Austria a monarch, and we will have a Saxonic Crown Alliance within Europe...with the little slavic states bowing to it, and France and Russia believing they play a part in it all :D

Besides, places get screwed over without our intervention. We've never laid foot in Latin America, but they ain't too utopian down there either.
Actually, we did screw them over - we had massive economic power over South America, especially Brazil and Argentina, in the 19th century. We effectively ruled those countries, because they couldn't say no to us as we'd just have royally fucked them in the arse economically. The Argentinians kicked us out at the start of the 20th century, and the Brazilians followed suit not long after.

Maybe because they don't know what's good for them...I am saddened that South Africa did not remain with the Empire, as I am saddened by the fact that Australia and Canada are no longer under complete British Rule, but merely recognise the Crown as sovereign.

No

Actually, we did screw them over - we had massive economic power over South America, especially Brazil and Argentina, in the 19th century. We effectively ruled those countries, because they couldn't say no to us as we'd just have royally fucked them in the arse economically. The Argentinians kicked us out at the start of the 20th century, and the Brazilians followed suit not long after.
I'm not aware of that, nor can I find anything on it. Admitedly I didn't look too hard.

Yep :p Yet we know who would have all the real power ;)

Come to think of it, its a great idea. Give Germany and Austria a monarch, and we will have a Saxonic Crown Alliance within Europe...with the little slavic states bowing to it, and France and Russia believing they play a part in it all :D
NEVER! They gave up their royals fair and square. They're ours now! It anyone's going to do any divine right ruling around here it'll be us! Norway, Denmark and Holland may have monarchies of their own, but they're too small. It's down to us Brits again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands <-- the problems with wiki
"DRUGZ, LICUR, HOOKERS..... AND CHEESE!!!"

Haha so be it, so long as the interests of the germanic nations coincide so as to allow them to dominate the EU :) Sweden also has a monarchy btw :)

Haha so be it, so long as the interests of the germanic nations coincide so as to allow them to dominate the EU :) Sweden also has a monarchy btw :)
Yes, but they're too busy particpating in orgies in their volvos with Abba playing on car radio at full blast to care what's happening outside their country.

I have to say yes.

Look at it this way:

India:
They side with the Liberal Muslims, who want to create their own nation. They had good intentions at heart, I must say, but the British supported them so that they could weaken India itself. Their other brilliant strokes of genius on the sub-continent include; Splitting Pakistan into East and West (which caused the Third Indo-Pakistan War, which left millions dead), and leaving the Princely states up for grabs (which lead to the First, Second, and Fourth Indo-Pakistan Wars, the Fourth being the Kargil Conflict). The Indian sub-continent is now home to two nuclear powers, each with militaries on the top 10-list (in terms of size), and if they go to war again then, my good sirs, the world is going to hell in a hand-basket. First Delhi will go, I suppose, then Lahore, then Mumbai, then Karachi, then Madras, then Islamabad...

Palestine:
A land without people for a people without land. Oh Britain, how could you be so naive? You were revered by the Arabs for freeing them from the Turks. So what do you do? You bring in a bunch of gun-totting Zionists and tell them "Have fun!" They then founded the state of Israel (after bombing some British military places), which in turn causes the whole middle-eastern crisis. The Middle-east could have been a relatively happy place, with a bunch of rich oil nations quietly living out their existance. Instead, at least three wars are caused, the Palestinians are deprived of their land, and the middle-east turns into the play-pen of military dictators, just waiting to commit some human rights abuses. If there was no Israel (or at least not an Israel in it's current form; a Jewish state built on Arab land, as opposed to a state built in Palestine where all religions are free and all peoples are welcomed), then there would be no Hezbollah, no Al-Aqsa martyrs brigade, no Global Jihad, and probably no Al-Qaeda (Although Al-Qaeda wasn't created to fight Israel, so this is probably disputable).

Northern Ireland:
Here's a brillaint idea; let's invade a nearby Island, conquer it, then when we pull out get all our protestant friends into a corner of the Island and say; "Well, we'd love to give up the land we stole from you, but since all the people in this area of the Island are protestants (and obviously protestants and catholics can't live together, nevermind the United States of America), we can't let you have this area. Rather sorry about that." The U.K. had no rightful claims on Ireland. And what's worse, they decide to massacre the Catholic Irish. Never mind that those massacred had nothing to do with attacks against the British Government, they just had to go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_%281972%29). At least they've improved recently, with trying this wonderful method of solving problems called "diplomacy"...

Iraq:
I have to agree with the opening post here; Iraq was, like Pakistan, India, and Israel, a rather flawed attempt by the British Government to create a state from their lands. They grouped three groups that had been warring with each other for as long as anyone could remember. The Kurds just wanted their own freaking state, but the Brit's decided "Well, they live near arabs, so they must be arabs!" Brilliant deduction, if I say so myself. It wasn't so bad at first, with Faisal on the throne, but when Saddam came to power...

Africa:
This wasn't just a British problem, it was a European problem. "Let's enslave an entire continent!" they said, and began laying claims to their lands left and right. Needless to say, they left a once well-off continent in ruins, and now Africa is a synonym for "genocide", "military dictatorship", and "civil war".

America:
I really don't think this was much of a screw-up at all, to say the truth. If anything, the British had the right to try and kick our asses during the Revolution. Our causes for revolution were lack-luster, at best. "No taxation without representation"!?! We wen't to war for 8 years because you didn't want to be taxed? Dude, weak. If I had lived back then, I would have sided with the Brits, no doubt.

This all said, I have nothing against Great Britain. I just think they have made some REALLY frigged up decisions in the past. I like British people. I watch BBC World all the time. I listen to British music. I eat British food (well, just Fish and chips, but that counts). I read British books.

Also, just for the record, I lived in the Indian Subcontinent, so I think I know my stuff when it comes to there. I have also read alot of history of the Arabian Peninsula and Africa, and I have a fair bit of knowledge on the British Empire.

Yes, but they're too busy particpating in orgies in their volvos with Abba playing on car radio at full blast to care what's happening outside their country.
Oh come on! :p I love Sweden and Swedes. Anyway, I can't really dispute that :p

The Lightning Star, yes indeed Britain did have some part to play in all the regions you mention, yet the USA is the most active in these regions today, so any problems present now are due to USA intervention. I am happy to see your enlightened stance towards the American Revolution :)

I must say though, India isn't a problem, as far as I know...

Not if you don't count 20 million dead due to various man made famines(1) (result of mercantilism and apathy) and the looting of resources and making the once rich and industrial country into a poor agricultural colony to be a captive market to dump British products(2) and dividing the society into Aryans and Dravidians by introducing artificial theories like the Aryan invasion theory(3) (the Nazis merely took it from there and boy did that bite Britain in the ass..) and ultimately dividing the country into two and making sure that the two countries are locked in a dispute and are "containing" each other(4).

If we can overlook all that, we can agree that it was good for the natives. :rolleyes:

1. Read up on Bengal famines and the Madras famines and many such famines in the ~200 years of British rule. Independant India never had a famine even having population tripled and monsoon remaining the same.

2. Indian industries were crippled by the unfair export tariffs imposed by the Brits. Indian textiles were levied 70-80% tariffs whilst British imports were 3-5%. Many artisans and cottage industries were doomed by this dumping of British manufactured products rendering millions jobless and thus the start of the grim poverty that is still haunting India.

3. Max Mueller, the proponent of the Aryan invasion theory, was employed by the Brits to decipher the vedas. Read his letters where he mentions that the Indian society is ripe for conversion to christianity and by undermining the authority of the vedas, the hindus can be easy pluckings. The AIT is now discarded among academic circles but the damage is done.

4. Until 1930 there was no demand for a seperate country for muslims. Only when Churchill realised that an independant and democratic India will no longer play the "great game" for the Brits, the idea of a seperate state for muslims (ruled by a pliant elite) took hold. Not many people know that Jinnah, the father of Pakistan, held a British passport in 1930. Churchill's letter to Jinnah advising Jinnah not to be seen with him in public, was recently published.

Reg Kashmir, Attlee did not want two British commanders fighting against each other (both India and Pakistan army military chiefs were still Brits). This delayed decisive action by the Indian army result of which the tribal (plus regulars) army could hold kashmir territory. Soon India replaced the British Chief and was turning the tide and beating back the rebels, but Mountbatten pressurised Nehru to take the case to the UN instead of continuing military action. Result is that the two countries are still fighting.


Bottomline.

Stop romanticising the British empire. It was evil. It was not as evil as the Nazis, but if one has to resort to saying "well they were better than the Nazis"...it is not really saying much.

And before somebody points out that the British gave civil infrastructure, railways etc, please bear in mind that the benefits were unintended and the infrastructure were built for better looting and not for the benefit of the subjects.

Please drop the use of the word evil...evil, as Nietzsche said, is a word slaves use to characterise the actions of those with power. Perhaps you could say it was harsh, cruel, whatever. Do not try and insert morality into the issue...its relative and pointless to argue from such a viewpoint.

Please drop the use of the word evil...evil, as Nietzsche said, is a word slaves use to characterise the actions of those with power. Perhaps you could say it was harsh, cruel, whatever. Do not try and insert morality into the issue...its relative and pointless to argue from such a viewpoint.

I don't care what the eff Nietzjsdlfjsde said.:)

Then don't expect your word of evil to be apt in describing the British Empire.

Oh come on! :p I love Sweden and Swedes. Anyway, I can't really dispute that :p

The Lightning Star, yes indeed Britain did have some part to play in all the regions you mention, yet the USA is the most active in these regions today, so any problems present now are due to USA intervention. I am happy to see your enlightened stance towards the American Revolution :)

We're only active in those areas because you guys frigged up, so our leaders had the genius idea that we had to fix your problem. :D

And btw, I never said Great Britain was evil. It's past mistakes...were big, yes, but Great Britain isn't evil.

How are you fixing ANY problems? You are creating new ones with your lust for oil and influence in these regions. Plus all US investment in China is creating a massive danger. And trust me, Bush's speeches are hardly well received in the Middle East.

I blame the birthplace of civilization, wherever we end up pinpointing it at. If we just hadn't started civilization at all, we wouldn't have the forked up civilization of today. Now that I think of it, actually, that would mean that Africa is Africa's own fault.

Indeed :P Anyway, I have made my point...time to go on to the next argument :P

:p

Indeed, the USA is a world on its own. In any case, to all of those of you would place all blame on Britain, I say get a clue.

I'm not placing all the blame on Britian, god dammnit!

Here are some other countries that can take the fall.

*America
*France
*Germany
*Russia
*Belgium
*America
*America
*America
*America
*America

How are you fixing ANY problems? You are creating new ones with your lust for oil and influence in these regions. Plus all US investment in China is creating a massive danger. And trust me, Bush's speeches are hardly well received in the Middle East.

I never said we are fixing your problems, just our leaders think we should.

Oh please. So Britain is the great historic satan now? Get off your damn high horse and look around you. Yeah, thats right, I can practically guarantee that if you're European or American you directly benefit, right now, from the amazing bounty showered upon you by the Empire.

Unparalleled social privilege and wealth are in your hands and you whinge like a spoilt child. So Africa is messed up - big deal. There's nothing dark or sinister about colonialism; we just happened to ride the right wave of cultural development right to the pinnacle of superiority and try and share this ideal with the rest of the world. How in heavens name can you blame us for not understanding sociological compatibility? Hell, without the globalisation of the world (because of us, btw) you wouldn't know much about anything or anyone beyond your own borders. Unless some other Empire had expanded instead, in which case right now you'd be rebelling against them while their kids sat and whinged in front of computers about how their fore-fathers were cruel oppressors.

The British Empire shrunk the globe by squeezing it in its fists and damn good thing it did.

And the Crown r0x0r$ - next parliament V monarchy civil war I'm gonna kick some republican ass.

Oh please. So Britain is the great historic satan now? Get off your damn high horse and look around you. Yeah, thats right, I can practically guarantee that if you're European or American you directly benefit, right now, from the amazing bounty showered upon you by the Empire.

Unparalleled social privilege and wealth are in your hands and you whinge like a spoilt child. So Africa is messed up - big deal. There's nothing dark or sinister about colonialism; we just happened to ride the right wave of cultural development right to the pinnacle of superiority and try and share this ideal with the rest of the world. How in heavens name can you blame us for not understanding sociological compatibility? Hell, without the globalisation of the world (because of us, btw) you wouldn't know much about anything or anyone beyond your own borders. Unless some other Empire had expanded instead, in which case right now you'd be rebelling against them while their kids sat and whinged in front of computers about how their fore-fathers were cruel oppressors.

The British Empire shrunk the globe by squeezing it in its fists and damn good thing it did.

And the Crown r0x0r$ - next parliament V monarchy civil war I'm gonna kick some republican ass.


But was the "amazing bounty" showered upon us worth potential nuclear war, which could lead to the destruction of mankind itself, instability in the middle east, and a genocide every 10 years in Africa?

Then don't expect your word of evil to be apt in describing the British Empire.

British empire = despicable evil. To me. Don't care what it is to you. Don't care what nietzwhatshisname thinks about the idea of evil and whether it is apt or not.

I think it is evil and I will call it so and I will keep calling it so.:)

If you don't like it, you (assuming you are a British citizen, apologies if you are not) can make amends by returning the loot displayed in British museums, starting with the Kohinoor diamond.

Hmm does the original poster actually mean Britain, or rather more are they actually asking what we think of England?

Britain can't technically interfer in Northern Ireland because Northern Ireland is part of Britain, therefore Britain is not interfering at all. The trouble in Ireland wasn't started by the 'British' either, it was started by some 'British' individuals in a time when they were referred to as only English.

The English are the potential problem if you're going down that road. But to set the record straight Dublin was once in an alliance with the Viking Kingdom of York and run by the Scandinavians. The Scandinavian's then attacked the Anglo-Saxons in the south of England, and these are the people referred to as English. People from the North of England (even now) generally view themselves as a different type of English than the Southern English.

As you see it gets very, very complex. There more you look into it that harder it becomes to define what English is exactly. Is Anglo-Saxon English? Danish is that English? (King Canute was the king of England for many years afterall), Are the Norsemen English? Not to mention the Celts who inhabited the island before any of the other guys arrived... most of their descendents now live in Wales and Cornwall. Then we get the French who ran England from 1066-1485... are they English?

Of course by the time we get to the British Empire i should point out that Victoria was German and Disraeli was of Jewish origins (Disraeli itself is hardly and English name). The two most powerful people in the Empire and neither of them was 100% British.

Ironically at the time the opposition leader William Gladstone was not in favour of either the monarch or the Empire at large and he was British.

hey they oppressed us british people too

British empire = despicable evil. To me. Don't care what it is to you. Don't care what nietzwhatshisname thinks about the idea of evil and whether it is apt or not.

I think it is evil and I will call it so and I will keep calling it so.:)

Saying that the British Empire is despicable evil to me is tantamount to saying that mankind itself is despicably evil. That is unless you think that the British Empire was materially any worse than say the Roman Empire, the Spanish conquest of Mexico, or the German genocide in Namibia or the American treatment of the plains Indians, or literally countless other examples from history from Homo Sapiens' treatment of neanderthal man to current-day child labour in China.
Wherever a power imbalance opens up, facilitated by technology or any other menas, it is man's nature to exploit his fellow, less fortunate man. Had the British Empire not made the countries it did colonies, the only result would have been that others would have stepped into the breach to exploit the helpless natives, as can be seen from the scramble to colonise Africa. And it's not only nations that exploit their fellow man, individuals have shown themselves more than willing to take the opportunity to enhance their own power and wealth at the expense of their fellows. The East India Company, and later the British Empire in India, would not have been able to enjoy the success it did without the complicity of willing Indians. Likewise many of the most notorious slavers were African, but were more than happy to sell their neighbours for the money.
Note that this doesn't excuse the behaviour, but merely sets it in its context, a context which makes statements like 'British empire = despicable evil' inappropriate as others have tried to point out.
Your attitude is similar to those who are willing to despise the Nazis and turn around and say 'oh, but it could never have happened here'. To do so misses the point such lessons have to teach us. Under certain circumstances nearly all of us has the capacity to inflict terrible cruelties on our fellow man. The only way we can prevent this in the future is to recognise that fact instead of adopting a holier-than-thou attitude and pointing fingers.

No. Tony Blair's a little fucked sometimes, sure, but you can't blame one government for the World's failings. Quite unfair.

Oh please. So Britain is the great historic satan now? Get off your damn high horse and look around you. Yeah, thats right, I can practically guarantee that if you're European or American you directly benefit, right now, from the amazing bounty showered upon you by the Empire.

Unparalleled social privilege and wealth are in your hands and you whinge like a spoilt child. So Africa is messed up - big deal. There's nothing dark or sinister about colonialism; we just happened to ride the right wave of cultural development right to the pinnacle of superiority and try and share this ideal with the rest of the world. How in heavens name can you blame us for not understanding sociological compatibility? Hell, without the globalisation of the world (because of us, btw) you wouldn't know much about anything or anyone beyond your own borders. Unless some other Empire had expanded instead, in which case right now you'd be rebelling against them while their kids sat and whinged in front of computers about how their fore-fathers were cruel oppressors.

The British Empire shrunk the globe by squeezing it in its fists and damn good thing it did.

And the Crown r0x0r$ - next parliament V monarchy civil war I'm gonna kick some republican ass.
Hear Hear! :D May the Crown reign upon Britain until the end of time.

Indeed, Europe forged the modern world, for better or for worse. Perhaps one day the Crowns of Europe shall regain their power through a Saxonic royal alliance (superimposing itself on all other countries within the EU), perhaps led by Britain and Germany, largest of the Saxon nations (these being the UK, Germany, Scandinavia, Finland, Austria, Holland, parts of Belgium and Switzerland and perhaps even Hungary).

Yossarian Lives, thank you for further expressing the idea I had set out :) Indeed, evil is so subjective a term that in the end it leads to self righteous puritanism, something the USA suffers from deeply. As for Africa? Well they were already carving themselves up in civil war...Africans detest other africans. They are hardly the innocent tribesmen most want them to be.

Oh, and to those who say Britain could be attributable for a nuclear war in the future, please take a look at who used the first damn atomic bomb. :rolleyes: And don't mount the argument that you had no idea of how powerful it would have been...American scientists were well aware of the bomb's potency, and in fact sought to develop more powerful versions as they found it to be wanting.

British empire = despicable evil. To me. Don't care what it is to you. Don't care what nietzwhatshisname thinks about the idea of evil and whether it is apt or not.

I think it is evil and I will call it so and I will keep calling it so.:)

If you don't like it, you (assuming you are a British citizen, apologies if you are not) can make amends by returning the loot displayed in British museums, starting with the Kohinoor diamond.
I am not a British citizen, I am of South African birth and Dutch origin, yet I regard Britain in the highest esteem. I do not see why Britain should return anything. If to say Britain should return diamonds as they were once property of another nation, how about we say that the USA should be handed over to the UK as it was once its colony?

As for "evil", one could argue that Bush and the religious Right in the USA are evil post WW 2 Nazi wannabes, trying to impose their beliefs on an entire nation and seeking to gain imperial influence throughout the world (eg Iraq). Do not be so presumptuous as to believe any nation is exempt from criticism. The term evil is one wanting of greater precision and lacking the validity of a more objective term. What is evil to you may be wondrous to me. Yossarian Lives pretty sums up why it is so useless a term.

Let's clear the crap here shall we. Let's have another look at the world before the British Empire. And also compare democracy to Imperialsim. All in all I'll think you find the only difference that Britain made was to make themselves richer. Nothing else that wasn't already happening.

The Americas - There seemed to be a fair bit of infighting between the different tribes - there always is. And the British were nothing compared to the Spanish.

Africa - There was empire in this continent before we came along. The ancient Egyptians, The Arabs, The Zulu. All of whom mistreated many people in the continent.

India - The Moghal dynasty anyone? Aggresive conquest of the Indian subcontinent by Sunni Muslims. It persecuted Hindus and Sikhs and eventually got battered by a Persian army (Shia) before the British arrived.

China - The Chinese either suffer under their own emperors who force to build huge walls, or the Mongols who burn a fair few cities, or the British who were concerned about exports of opium (they wanted a larger share of the pie), or the Japanese, or under their communist leaders. NB. Hong Kong become one of the richest and most developed areas in south east asia before it was eventually handed back to China.

The middle east - Sunni Islam is fairly democratic, but tends to like conquering places like Iberia, Central Asia, India and others. Shia Islam isn't quite so democratic and it's bastion, Persia, also tends to like conquering places whenever it can.

Europe - Very fertile ground for growing crops from all the blood that's been spilt on it. Everyone fights everyone and ocassionally they fight themselves.

Democracy vs. Empire
Whilst democracy isn't new, its still only recently come to be viewed as an acceptable form of government. Democracy does things like forcing people to drink hemlock. Or being very aggressive to the rest of its neighbours when not staving off attacks from the Persians.

It does things like burn the capital city of a major trading empire and then salt the lands around the city. And it also comes up ideas like Crucifiction.

It comes up with stuff like Thing Law which is basically, I'm bored of farming this frigid waste. Lets see if I can persuade my friends to come and pillage that island across the sea with me. Easily done no doubt.

The British managed to have both democracy and empire at the same time and didn't do too badly for themselves.

Democracy also gets people voted in who still go to war for imperialist reasons, but under the guise of popularist ideas or by imbuing fear, nationalism, racism, hatred and other feelings into the populace.

Empire does all this also, but with much less buerocracy. Basically by saying 'do as we say or we'll hang you', rather than 'do as we say or they'll hang you'.

Empire and Democracy are as good as each other. If you want to blame something then become a realist and blame human nature.

To be honest mate, you could go on tracing things back and back and back. I blame the Romans because they forced their imperial power and culture onto us Brits...

I think the more important issue is who exactly is perpetuating these problems.

Sorry, but you, english, the base of today's britain destroyed most of the heritage of roman britain and its population, so, another brick in the wall.:cool:

Islam is the biggest problem to the world and always has been.

If there was still a british empire there would be peace.

I may not be British, yet as a European I do have the greatest admiration towards both the Empire and the nation itself. Europe should be proud to count Britain amongst its members.


I have no admiration toward any empire, although some are worse than others. At the end, the let poverty, and the seeds of a worse future, even ours (I'm spanish). Just free countries can admire free people and British empire wasn't (even Britain 'til the WWI.

Islam is the biggest problem to the world and always has been.

If there was still a british empire there would be peace.

1..NO...Islamic Fundamentalism (aswell as EVERY other form of fundamentalism ) is the problem

2..Yes..but it depends on Peace at Gunpoint is morally justifiable

I'm not placing all the blame on Britian, god dammnit!

Here are some other countries that can take the fall.

*America
*France
*Germany
*Russia
*Belgium
*America
*America
*America
*America
*America
Please, don't forget mine, we're not so important today but I think Spain deserves a place in the gallery of horrors.;)

Cultural relativistic nonsense. Would those who presume to criticise the British Empire as the cause of most problems also consider habeus corpus and constitutional democracy as problems? Or perhaps it is the notion of free trade and scientific advancement via the industrial revolution? Maybe it was the way that the British Empire evolved into Commonwealth of Nations that causes the concerns.

Please. :rolleyes:

Let's clear the crap here shall we. Let's have another look at the world before the British Empire. And also compare democracy to Imperialsim. All in all I'll think you find the only difference that Britain made was to make themselves richer. Nothing else that wasn't already happening.

The Americas - There seemed to be a fair bit of infighting between the different tribes - there always is. And the British were nothing compared to the Spanish.

Africa - There was empire in this continent before we came along. The ancient Egyptians, The Arabs, The Zulu. All of whom mistreated many people in the continent.

India - The Moghal dynasty anyone? Aggresive conquest of the Indian subcontinent by Sunni Muslims. It persecuted Hindus and Sikhs and eventually got battered by a Persian army (Shia) before the British arrived.

China - The Chinese either suffer under their own emperors who force to build huge walls, or the Mongols who burn a fair few cities, or the British who were concerned about exports of opium (they wanted a larger share of the pie), or the Japanese, or under their communist leaders. NB. Hong Kong become one of the richest and most developed areas in south east asia before it was eventually handed back to China.

The middle east - Sunni Islam is fairly democratic, but tends to like conquering places like Iberia, Central Asia, India and others. Shia Islam isn't quite so democratic and it's bastion, Persia, also tends to like conquering places whenever it can.

Europe - Very fertile ground for growing crops from all the blood that's been spilt on it. Everyone fights everyone and ocassionally they fight themselves.

Democracy vs. Empire
Whilst democracy isn't new, its still only recently come to be viewed as an acceptable form of government. Democracy does things like forcing people to drink hemlock. Or being very aggressive to the rest of its neighbours when not staving off attacks from the Persians.

It does things like burn the capital city of a major trading empire and then salt the lands around the city. And it also comes up ideas like Crucifiction.

It comes up with stuff like Thing Law which is basically, I'm bored of farming this frigid waste. Lets see if I can persuade my friends to come and pillage that island across the sea with me. Easily done no doubt.

The British managed to have both democracy and empire at the same time and didn't do too badly for themselves.

Democracy also gets people voted in who still go to war for imperialist reasons, but under the guise of popularist ideas or by imbuing fear, nationalism, racism, hatred and other feelings into the populace.

Empire does all this also, but with much less buerocracy. Basically by saying 'do as we say or we'll hang you', rather than 'do as we say or they'll hang you'.

Empire and Democracy are as good as each other. If you want to blame something then become a realist and blame human nature.

Very well put :) Democracies suffer from a number of issues, and I dispute that they should even be called democracies, as they are not rule by ALL the people, but by representative bodies. Why not give the monarch (which, following the German imperial system, should be elected by the elite, and should be of either gender) and an educated, intellectual elite more power to make decisions and keep Parliament as a means of expressing popular sentiments? That way, the elite can keep track of popular worries and so on. The Judiciary could be elected to ensure that it remains impartial. I detest partisan politics. At least by having an elected elite with a monarch at the top we can avoid the temptation to elect idiots who are basically simply good at selling their rubbish policies (see Bush for instance).

Gadiristan, what is a free country? One with a "democracy"? :rolleyes: Britain's Empire had one from the 17th century in effect. There is no such thing as a benevolent nation, and this modern intellectual theory about multiculturalism is all simply an effort to give way to capitalist domination of the world through globalisation. The USA being the one to benefit the most, as it doesn't have to get its hands dirty.

Indeed, fundamentalist islam is one of the world's biggest problems.

Please, don't forget mine, we're not so important today but I think Spain deserves a place in the gallery of horrors.;)
As do then Japan, China, Portugal, Holland and many modern african and islamist nations. :)

Islam is the biggest problem to the world and always has been.

If there was still a british empire there would be peace.

You must be crazy telling that, no culture is a problem.

I have no time to record a full list within all the wars fought by the british empire but I can remeber some:

Boer wars
Zulu Wars
Irak War (early in the 20's)
and many more...

Oh, but keep in mind the dear, sweet africans were busy bathing themselves in their own blood long before Britain even knew of Africa. Tribal warfare is common in Africa. Many of you Europeans (I am one too, but being born a South African gives me some insight at least into Africa) take this distanced, moralist view of the innocent, poor Africans. Go and live in Africa and realise how Africans think, then make your bloody conclusions.

Gadiristan, what is a free country? One with a "democracy"? :rolleyes: Britain's Empire had one from the 17th century in effect. There is no such thing as a benevolent nation, and this modern intellectual theory about multiculturalism is all simply an effort to give way to capitalist domination of the world through globalisation. The USA being the one to benefit the most, as it doesn't have to get its hands dirty.



Indeed, fundamentalist islam is one of the world's biggest problems.[/QUOTE]

First, I'm sorry but your conception on democracy it's not the same as mine, 17th century England wasn't a democracy, was a parlamentarian monarchy, that's not the same as long as most of the people had no right to vote to the parlament. Anyway, no country with subjects it's a real democracy, as it happened with the british empire or with some countries today like israel.

Second, I totally agree with you about islamic fundamentalism, but the islam is, fortunately, much more than that. And al-qaeda story it's just 20 years old, not fifteen centuries.

There is no such thing as a real democracy, that is why...and as for free countries, well the only thing I can see that as implying is a country with its own government, in whatever form that may be. As for being a subject or a citizen, that is wordplay that should best be avoided. A British subject of the crown may well have far more rights than a person who is a citizen of their nation.

The East has waged war against Europe for centuries. They seem to think it is us who hate them, yet they forget that it was the Mongols who first attempted to raid Europe, that it was Turkey who crushed the Byzantine Empire and that it was the Arabs (directly related to Islam) who waged centuries of war on Western Europe. Islam was actually formed with the express purpose of creating an Arab nation that would spread by blood and iron. Thus, the problem is ancient, and relies on interpretation of thousand year old scriptures. Al Qaeda, by merit of this, has ideologies based in ancient philosophies. Islam was a mixture of Jewish, Christian and Zoroastric religious beliefs. Now, how you interpret it may or may not make it seem harsh, but its original purpose was to give the Arabs united purpose in forming a nation and later an empire.

As do then Japan, China, Portugal, Holland and many modern african and islamist nations. :)

Well, shure, the countries you named but I thought we were talking about colonial empires, and I know no african nor islamic country possesing colonies, but Morocco (with the Sahara, a former Spanish colony). And I think it's horrible, specially 'cause it's happenig right now:(

I'm going to make one post only on this topic. I'm not a British subject, but I am from a country that had to fight tooth and nail to get its independence from it.

The majority of the problems we suffer today are invariably a result of 19th c, 18th c, 17th c and 16th c British/English Imperialism.

Aryavatha neatly pointed out the desruction wrought about the Indian sub-continent.

America is a product of its own decisions, not British. The States was buil up by the States with little or no real intereference from Britian.

Africa can be blamed on most European powers; Britian, France, Portugal, Belguim and to a lesser extent Imperial Germany, Spain and Italy. However, as this thread is about Britian- the focus should be on them and only them. Cecil Rhodes and his glorious "Cape to Cairo" jingoistic bullshit helped fuck up a large part of the continent.
"But, we gave them roads, education, democracy?"
Yeah well, you pulled out so damn quickly that everything collpased as soon as the door closed behind you. (the Congo is a prime example of this) Again, drawing lines on a map to suit some office in London help screw up the vast part of Africa and the Middle East. Nigeria is a beautiful example of this, and the Arabian Peninsula also. It helps the black hole of an Imperial power to Merchantilise the whole damn empire and so long as the money keeps flowing in with as little problem as possible, then there is nothing to be worried about.

Again, playing 'tribes' off against each other is a nice, typical Imperial thing to do- it helps the governance in the short term but clearly screws up things down the line.

Ireland, well. Ramming in settlers for a period and then complaining when everyone doesn't get along, various put downs and treatment like a colony will invariably piss off a people. The problems in the North are in part because again of British governance stretching waaay back. The very fabric of local government (county borders) were established by the ruling powers- spliting traditional boundaries and separating areas that anyone with a brain would tell you should not be split.
Again, playing 'tribes' off against each other is sound Imperial policy- it helps run the colony. Fucks it up long term- but hey! Who cares, we won't be around when the Empire falls will we Timmy?
And if anyone disagrees?
Ship em off to some prison island on the other side of the world.

So, yes. In a roundabout way in some cases, and in a direct way in others British Imperialism is a cause of a lot of the worlds problems in the world today.

I did not discuss Scotland or New Zealand as I'm sure they will like to decribe the 'benefits' of having a dodgy paternal neighbour or overlord- the Maori probably have a beef with the English too I imagine.

There is no such thing as a real democracy, that is why...and as for free countries, well the only thing I can see that as implying is a country with its own government, in whatever form that may be.

The East has waged war against Europe for centuries. They seem to think it is us who hate them, yet they forget that it was the Mongols who first attempted to raid Europe, that it was Turkey who crushed the Byzantine Empire and that it was the Arabs (directly related to Islam) who waged centuries of war on Western Europe. Islam was actually formed with the express purpose of creating an Arab nation that would spread by blood and iron. Thus, the problem is ancient, and relies on interpretation of thousand year old scriptures. Al Qaeda, by merit of this, has ideologies based in ancient philosophies.

Unfortunately, I have no time to argue about that. There so many things I don't agree with....
I have to go, have fun!

Well, shure, the countries you named but I thought we were talking about colonial empires, and I know no african nor islamic country possesing colonies, but Morocco (with the Sahara, a former Spanish colony). And I think it's horrible, specially 'cause it's happenig right now:(
They did not form colonial empires, yet their empires (the Turkish empire committed several genocides) were no less bloody or gruesome. Many of them were vast.

Psychotic Mongooses, no, none of today's problems are exclusively due to Britain. They are due to a victim mentality and an inability to move forward. African tribes always warred against each other. They still do. The easy way out? Blame Britain, or Germany or France instead of our own incompetent rulers. All you are making mention of is a common imperial policy of Divide and Conquer, much like the one the Romans used, or any empire or conquering nation would use. The USA even uses it today. Britain is hardly to blame for any of today's problems. Too bad most of its colonies gained independence. And no, the focus need not be on Britain, as it is attempting to blame Britain, so blame should be accorded to those who deserve it. Thus, limiting focus to Britain is pointless.

Here are some examples to jog your memory.


* Northern Ireland
* Palenstine
* Iraq
* Africa
* America
As mentioned by I V Stalin:
* India

Northern Ireland is self explaintory.

Palenstine was under British mandate until the 1940s (after gaining it in World War I) when the Brits pulled out and Jews created their own country much to the displeasure of the Arabs.

Iraq, after World War One, the British lumped together three diffrent groups of people who since the dawn of Islam have mostly wanted to beat the shit out of other and kill each other (except the Kurds, who just a want country...)

Africa... also self-explantory.

America is just a joke. But well they did tax and we formed our own country which is ruled by a moron and has been ruled other morons in the past, but hey, it's beats out living under the British.

DISCLAIMER:To all people of British decent or who are British. I do not hate you. I just hate the crown and the goverments past actions. As such I will name some of the great things you have given us and me.

* Our freedom
* The Beatles, The Who, The Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, The Clash and countless other British bands
* Monty Python
* People who are smarter then people here.
* Something for my ancestors to blow up (I'm Irish-American)
* Monty Python
* Monty Python
and
* Monty Python
and
* tea

Thank you.

The crown? You should do a little research before you pop up threads like this. The crown has had little if any political power for a long time.

Precisely, its mostly a figure head.

Too bad most of its colonies gained independence.

EXCUSE ME?!?!? Fuck that! I live in a country that was shat upon by her neighbour for several hundred years- the population of my country used to 9million. By independence it was barely 3million. A LOT of that had to do with being treated like a slave colony.

War, famine, wholesale slaughter and to top it all off..... not even actaul sembalnces of democracy for all the trouble Imperialism went toThe black colonies were treated better then we were!
Even until the mid 20th C: No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish.

Get over your romanticism. Imperialism (in any form) is NOT A GOOD THING.

As to the rest of your post, yes I agree- but this thread is about British Imperialism so I focused directly on British history- stretching back a good 500 years. Start a seperate thread on Namibia, Spanish America, French IndoChina, Dutch East Indies etc etc.

No, this is a thread aimed at placing blame for all the world's problems on Britain. Thus it would be a good idea to exonerate her by showing how blame does not rest solely on her back, but on any number of countries, both colonial and modern.

Oh and by the way, I meant the colonies it itself created, like the USA, parts of Canada and Australia. I don't consider Ireland a colony, but rather a country that was integrated into Britain.

That is so full of half truths and misunderstandings that I'm not sure where to begin.




[QUOTE]The majority of the problems we suffer today are invariably a result of 19th c, 18th c, 17th c and 16th c British/English Imperialism
Aryavatha neatly pointed out the desruction wrought about the Indian sub-continent.

Britain didn't create a climate of fear and hatred between Muslim and Hindu. They've managed that pretty effectively for themselves for a long, long time. What they were guilty of was pulling out too quickly and allowing massacres to take place. It has been acknowledged many, many times.

America is a product of its own decisions, not British. The States was built up by the States with little or no real intereference from Britian.

So you don't think that America has any responsibility for any world problems today then?


Africa can be blamed on most European powers; Britian, France, Portugal, Belguim and to a lesser extent Imperial Germany, Spain and Italy. However, as this thread is about Britian- the focus should be on them and only them. Cecil Rhodes and his glorious "Cape to Cairo" jingoistic bullshit helped fuck up a large part of the continent.
"But, we gave them roads, education, democracy?"
Yeah well, you pulled out so damn quickly that everything collpased as soon as the door closed behind you. (the Congo is a prime example of this) Again, drawing lines on a map to suit some office in London help screw up the vast part of Africa and the Middle East. Nigeria is a beautiful example of this, and the Arabian Peninsula also. It helps the black hole of an Imperial power to Merchantilise the whole damn empire and so long as the money keeps flowing in with as little problem as possible, then there is nothing to be worried about.

Maybe you can tell me exactly what the difference between this and the actions of modern corporations exploiting cheap labour and worse labour laws is? And which particular Congo are we talking about? The ex Belgian Congo perhaps? Also it is not Britain that keeps conflicts raging in Africa-there are many arms dealers from many countries only too happy to do that.

Again, playing 'tribes' off against each other is a nice, typical Imperial thing to do- it helps the governance in the short term but clearly screws up things down the line.

Are you also saying that devious Timmy Brit is capable of sowing so much desent between otherwise friendly neighbouring states, happily playing together. Because of course until Britian went into Africa noone was fighting at all.South Africa was many nations, constantly feuding. And you know it.

Ireland, well. Ramming in settlers for a period and then complaining when everyone doesn't get along, various put downs and treatment like a colony will invariably piss off a people. The problems in the North are in part because again of British governance stretching waaay back. The very fabric of local government (county borders) were established by the ruling powers- spliting traditional boundaries and separating areas that anyone with a brain would tell you should not be split.
Again, playing 'tribes' off against each other is sound Imperial policy- it helps run the colony. Fucks it up long term- but hey! Who cares, we won't be around when the Empire falls will we Timmy?
And if anyone disagrees?
Ship em off to some prison island on the other side of the world.

I think you'll find that everyone in Britain agrees that that was a monumental f*** up. Are you seriously suggesting that situations such as Myanmar, the Balkans, Indonesia, etc. etc. etc. are also our responsibility?

So, yes. In a roundabout way in some cases, and in a direct way in others British Imperialism is a cause of a lot of the worlds problems in the world today.

Some, acknowledged. TBH the main one for me would be the Middle East, but I'm not going to argue your point for you. However, your last point simply beggars belief:

I did not discuss Scotland or New Zealand as I'm sure they will like to decribe the 'benefits' of having a dodgy paternal neighbour or overlord- the Maori probably have a beef with the English too I imagine.


Scotland was very much part of the Empire. You'll find it was, in fact, a fairly major part of it, particularly in the military and the civil service. Really, if you are going to criticise an Empire, please make sure you know what it consisted of.

Are you also saying that devious Timmy Brit is capable of sowing so much desent between otherwise friendly neighbouring states, happily playing together. Because of course until Britian went into Africa noone was fighting at all.South Africa was many nations, constantly feuding. And you know it.


Indeed, this is true. I have been stating this numerous times throughout this thread. Africans have ALWAYS been warring between each other, always. South Africa was merely an intensification of this, more likely attributable to my Dutch ancestors than the British. The colonists did cause problems, yet these had always existed.

Scotland is indeed an integral part of Britain. In fact, it was under the Stuart crowns that the English and Scottish monarchies were unified.

Scotland is indeed an integral part of Britain. In fact, it was under the Stuart crowns that the English and Scottish monarchies were unified.


Yep. Let's get a couple of myths about Scotland's "oppression" nailed right now as well. The Union of the Crowns, the first crowned head of State of Britain was James the 6th and 1st (6th of Scotland, 1st of England and Britain). Scottish and smart enough to know that London was a lot closer to the markets of Europe than Edinburgh.

The parliaments were joined without bloodshed, but after the failed Darian project-the first (and last) Scottish attempt at Imperialist colonisation in Central America. We were right keen on it, but too small and financially insignificant to do it alone. Plenty of brains and ideas though.......

The real emnity most people have to the British Empire is that it was just too damned succesful. I'm not defending it, it was of its time and clearly had a lot wrong with it. But to say that the world has yet to get over it is to give the rest of the world pretty little credit.

EXCUSE ME?!?!? Fuck that! I live in a country that was shat upon by her neighbour for several hundred years- the population of my country used to 9million. By independence it was barely 3million. A LOT of that had to do with being treated like a slave colony.
Do you not think that most of the population decline could be based more upon emmigration and the potato famine. You might be able to blame the famine on British economic policy, but that wouldn't have stopped the blight. Estimates of 1 million dead and 2 million refugees.

Ireland has only recently (last half century) stemed the tide of emmigration.

And war - when has there ever been a period in history without war? It's part of human nature. Groups either fight other groups to almalgamate those groups or a group splits and they fight for supremacy. Even after Ireland was granted independence a civil war followed.

Thus Scotland and England are very much bound together, even if they sometimes hate to admit it.

Wasn't much of Irish emigration heading towards the USA? I believe many Irish left the Eire due to better prospects of life across the Atlantic (many of which discovered these to be false).

I find it a bit hypocritical to hear Americans criticising the British for our past. They should have a look at what they did. Genocide against the Native Americans, including the deliberate spread of smallpox. The CIA-sponsored installation of brutal military dictatorships in South American countries that didn't want to have their economic policies handed to them from Washington. The Vietnam war. The recent revaltions of torture camps in foreign countries where you can whisk people away without the need for such inconveniences as legal representation or a trial. That's only a tiny amount of the stuff America's pulled.

I'm not going to pretend that we didn't do some ugly things, but the British certainly don't have a monopoly at it. It's human nature, the rest of the world would have done exactly the same thing. We were only more successful. And the Americans are just as bad.

I find it a bit hypocritical to hear Americans criticising the British for our past. They should have a look at what they did. Genocide against the Native Americans, including the deliberate spread of smallpox. The CIA-sponsored installation of brutal military dictatorships in South American countries that didn't want to have their economic policies handed to them from Washington. The Vietnam war. The recent revaltions of torture camps in foreign countries where you can whisk people away without the need for such inconveniences as legal representation or a trial. That's only a tiny amount of the stuff America's pulled.

I'm not going to pretend that we didn't do some ugly things, but the British certainly don't have a monopoly at it. It's human nature, the rest of the world would have done exactly the same thing. We were only more successful. And the Americans are just as bad.

But America hasn't had the world under it's heel for a century. We've only been the only super-power since the end of the Cold War. I'm not saying we are without blame, but at least we didn't create the Middle East Crisis (although we problem worsened it), and we didn't decide to partition India. We also never colonized Africa (although we DID help create Liberia). I'm sure that if we are given a century to ourselves, we'll problem frig up the world pretty bad ourselves.

But America hasn't had the world under it's heel for a century. We've only been the only super-power since the end of the Cold War. I'm not saying we are without blame, but at least we didn't create the Middle East Crisis (although we problem worsened it), and we didn't decide to partition India. We also never colonized Africa (although we DID help create Liberia). I'm sure that if we are given a century to ourselves, we'll problem frig up the world pretty bad ourselves.


Well that is kind of the point I think.
As for having the world under its heel, well that is one way of describing it-another might be setting the foundations for scientific and commercial development, as well as the improvement of medicine, education and travel. But hey, what did the Romans ever do for us, eh?

Britain didn't create a climate of fear and hatred between Muslim and Hindu. They've managed that pretty effectively for themselves for a long, long time. What they were guilty of was pulling out too quickly and allowing massacres to take place. It has been acknowledged many, many times.

Am not an expert in the Sub continent history- I'm going to take the word of someone who lives there (ie Aryavatha)


So you don't think that America has any responsibility for any world problems today then?

Hell yeah I do! :D But this thread is about the British Empire- not the American. And more so I am concentrating on policies and events that occured waaay in the past, that allowed the current mess to be further stirred up by 20th/21st C Imperialistic ventures. The beginnings of todays problems stem back to the Imperial Age- at the forefront of which was Britain. (Also, France, Germany, Russia, Belgium etc etc but as I said, thei thread is not about general Imperial history- it is about Britain, so thats where I focus.




Maybe you can tell me exactly what the difference between this and the actions of modern corporations exploiting cheap labour and worse labour laws is? And which particular Congo are we talking about? The ex Belgian Congo perhaps? Also it is not Britain that keeps conflicts raging in Africa-there are many arms dealers from many countries only too happy to do that.

Couldn't agree more with you. There is very little if any difference. I am talking about the begininngs of the current problems- the drawing a neat line on a map to facilitate companies and Offices in London.

And yes, I am talking about the Belgian Congo- they pulled out so fast that the country had 30 university graduates to fill the administrative positions of 15,000 jobs!! I was using this example of how withdrawing so fast from Imperial ventures REALLY screws up countries. Nothing to do with the British per se, I was merely using theis as an example.



Are you also saying that devious Timmy Brit is capable of sowing so much desent between otherwise friendly neighbouring states, happily playing together. Because of course until Britian went into Africa noone was fighting at all.South Africa was many nations, constantly feuding. And you know it.

Again, right on the all. What Imperial Britain did was to exacerbate the situation by playing these feuding factions off against each other to help them rule. Again, nothing spectacularly unique in this- all imperial regimes do this- again- only focusing on Britain, because thats what the topic is. ;)



I think you'll find that everyone in Britain agrees that that was a monumental f*** up. Are you seriously suggesting that situations such as Myanmar, the Balkans, Indonesia, etc. etc. etc. are also our responsibility?


Really? Because a lot Anglos on here seem to think that it was nothing to do with them and that the island should still be part and parcel of the UK. 'A mistake we will not let happen again' I believe someone uttered on here.

Myanmar, Balkans, Indonesia= Britains fault? Hardly think so. General Imperial Powers fault? Absolutely. But AGAIN, this thread is about BRITISH IMPERIAL problems not anyone elses. If you would like to start a seperate thread on other Imperial fuck ups then by all means, I'll wade in there too. :D




Some, acknowledged. TBH the main one for me would be the Middle East, but I'm not going to argue your point for you. However, your last point simply beggars belief:

I'd also agree with the Middle East being the main area of problems too.


Scotland was very much part of the Empire. You'll find it was, in fact, a fairly major part of it, particularly in the military and the civil service. Really, if you are going to criticise an Empire, please make sure you know what it consisted of.

I never said Scotland wasn't part of the Empire. I said whether or not they have 'beef' with being ruled by a foreign land. I mean, we refer to the place as 'Scotland' don't we? Does that not surely imply that a seperate entity existed at some stage- and still wants to exist in the future? This isn't Shropshire we are talking about. This is a completely different ethnic people, culture, language, history etc etc.

And actually, the second city of the Empire was Dublin. Ireland was very much considered core of the Empire, yet it was still for some reason treated as an essential colony. Milk it dry and screw em attitude.

Do you not think that most of the population decline could be based more upon emmigration and the potato famine. You might be able to blame the famine on British economic policy, but that wouldn't have stopped the blight. Estimates of 1 million dead and 2 million refugees.

You're darn fuckin' tootin! Nothing would have stopped the blight- that not the debate. The debate is why millions of tonnes of grain was still being shipped out of the country because the merchants could get better prices for it elsewhere.
There was plenty of food, but mismanagment and political incompetence combined with an inherent 'tough shit' attitude from London meant about 1 million people starved to death and another 2 million emigrated.


Ireland has only recently (last half century) stemed the tide of emmigration.
Yeah, and? Whats your point? I never said anything about blaming Britain for anything after independece. Whatever problems occured was more likely due to poor political decision making and poor economic situations... not helped that independence occured roughly at the same time as the largest global depression on the planet kicked in.

. Even after Ireland was granted independence a civil war followed.
Again, whats your point? Do you remeber why there was a civil war after independence? That might give a clue as to why it happened alright...

I can't be bothered to read much of that. I think it's because I woke up too late for breakfast this morning.

Saying that the British Empire is despicable evil to me is tantamount to saying that mankind itself is despicably evil. That is unless you think that the British Empire was materially any worse than say the Roman Empire, the Spanish conquest of Mexico, or the German genocide in Namibia or the American treatment of the plains Indians, or literally countless other examples from history from Homo Sapiens' treatment of neanderthal man to current-day child labour in China.


Yes. Exploitation of fellow man has been existing ever since the creation/evolution of mankind.

So that means, I cannot call an empire which killed 20 millions and looted my country as an evil entity?

Bull.


Had the British Empire not made the countries it did colonies, the only result would have been that others would have stepped into the breach to exploit the helpless natives,

Not much of an excuse for their behavior.

It is like a murderer saying , "hey look at those guys, they killed too, so I guess I can also kill...and see I have killed only lesser than them and in anyway if I had not killed you, they would have...so don't hold me accountable for the murder I did":rolleyes:

The East India Company, and later the British Empire in India, would not have been able to enjoy the success it did without the complicity of willing Indians.

yes yes, they had it coming, them ungrateful natives to whom the noble englishman (dare I say whiteman) spread civilisation...

How dare they try to speak out their narrative...ungrateful people I say...

Note that this doesn't excuse the behaviour, but merely sets it in its context, a context which makes statements like 'British empire = despicable evil' inappropriate as others have tried to point out.

What the..

Look if it had been the French who had succeeded in capturing India and did the stuff that the British did, I would be holding the French accountable. If it had been the Portuguese, I would be holding them accountable.

In this case, it is the British and I am holding them accountable.

A billion Indians hold the British empire as evil. We simply don't care whether you think it is inappropriate or not.

Under certain circumstances nearly all of us has the capacity to inflict terrible cruelties on our fellow man.

Oh poor Britain. It is the circumstances.

Those who justify British imperialism on the grounds that it was the norm and it was due to the circumstances, cannot then blame the Nazis for their crimes.

The Nazis did it due to their circumstances. Right?

The only way we can prevent this in the future is to recognise that fact instead of adopting a holier-than-thou attitude and pointing fingers.

No no. You have got it all wrong.

I am demolishing the "we are holy" attitude by those who romanticise imperialism.

Disclaimer: I have no grudge against modern day Britons (except the empire lover, who I hold in utmost contempt) for the crimes perpetrated by their forefathers..even considering that modern day Britons are enjoying the fruits of the imperialism (looted wealth). In fact, I don't even want any apologies or reparations (well maybe some of the artefacts and important jewellry).

I am only interested in presenting our narrative, NOT the imperial narrative that is taken as the gospel truth.

But America hasn't had the world under it's heel for a century. We've only been the only super-power since the end of the Cold War. I'm not saying we are without blame, but at least we didn't create the Middle East Crisis (although we problem worsened it), and we didn't decide to partition India. We also never colonized Africa (although we DID help create Liberia). I'm sure that if we are given a century to ourselves, we'll problem frig up the world pretty bad ourselves.
I give you a decade, I think that's all you will need ;)

Psychotic Mongooses, you keep on saying this is a thread focused on Britain. Indeed it is...a thread focused on shifting all the problems of the world onto Britain. As such, it must be put into context with what other nations have done to establish whether or not this is true. So yes, the actions of other imperial nations are highly relevant.

Aryavartha, I wonder how many of those billion indians have the education to make such an assertion. A flock of sheep considers the wolf evil. They know little more than this. Yet the wolf is merely preying on its food. Its a harsh analogy to draw, yet humans don't vary that much to animals, now do they? Watch a mob of humans and try and dispute this.

Oh, and as for the "villain" whiteman, let me tell you this. The African blacks have always detested non blacks, they see them as inferior. They even consider other tribesmen inferior. Its part of their warrior mentality. They are not innocent lambs sent to the slaughter as many would like to believe. They are also one of the few races that integrate well into white cultures, on the condition that they are in a foreign environment, and for this I respect them.

I am demolishing the "we are holy" attitude by those who romanticise imperialism.

Disclaimer: I have no grudge against modern day Britons (except the empire lover, who I hold in utmost contempt) for the crimes perpetrated by their forefathers..even considering that modern day Britons are enjoying the fruits of the imperialism (looted wealth). In fact, I don't even want any apologies or reparations (well maybe some of the artefacts and important jewellry).

I am only interested in presenting our narrative, NOT the imperial narrative that is taken as the gospel truth.

HEAR HEAR! :D *applauds* Thank you Aryavartha.

Its different speaking from the perspective of one who lives in Britain to one who lives in a country that used to be ruled by Britain.

I am from a country once ruled by Britain. You don't see me whining though. This victim mentality should be rid of. Time to move forward. I may be a European, but I am not British so I have not been educated to support the empire.

I am from a country once ruled by Britain. You don't see me whining though. This victim mentality should be rid of. Time to move forward. I may be a European, but I am not British so I have not been educated to support the empire.

Ah, but are you from a country that was impacted NEGATIVELY by the British Empire? I don't think you could say that the British Empire thought negatively of South Africa (Boers excluded- nice job on the two wars by the way ;) ), especially the white population.

Whose "whining"? We are putting our cases forward. Excuse us for trying to shine a light on the romantic Empire crap!

The Irish were treated worse then blacks which was extremely odd given the location and 'special' treatment we were supposed to receive- believe me after studying 500 frickin' years of Irish/English history, the bad points outweigh the good. I'd say, Aryavartha could say the same for the Indian sub continent

Trust me, many of us "boers" (we call ourselves afrikaaners or dutch south africans now) do not see our exit from the Empire as beneficial.

You seem to think I regard the Empire with a romantic view. No. I am assessing it in light of Realpolitik. There is nothing romantic in my view. I know the Empire caused several problems, and that it also created many opportunities. Is Britain responsible for all the world's problems? Absolutely not. I cannot even come to say its responsible for 10%. Way too many nations have carved their niche into the world. Did Ireland and India suffer? So be it! Move on with your lives! The world is self interested at large, and no one is interested in playing blame games unless it so interests them. The Ottoman Empire caused countless problems, yet it is held accountable for very few. Why? No one cares anymore. Is Britain responsible for nuclear wars to come, for global famine, for overpopulation (quite the opposite here), for the hole in the ozone layer, for the spread of AIDs, for African poverty at large etc etc etc? No.

I sincerely doubt the British government deserves culpability for majority of the world's problems, since it acted solely in the manner by which numerous colonial government's acted, and the other principle colonial power, France, is similar in the resultant nations created from its colonies.

Trust me, many of us "boers" (we call ourselves afrikaaners or dutch south africans now) do not see our exit from the Empire as beneficial.
Sorry, only meant the Boers as a historical term- 1900ish and all.


You seem to think I regard the Empire with a romantic view. No. I am assessing it in light of Realpolitik. There is nothing romantic in my view. I know the Empire caused several problems, and that it also created many opportunities.
This

Too bad most of its colonies gained independence.
was the quote that seems to romanticise the whole Empire jaunt. Sorry, if thats not what you meant.

Several problems? Emm.... yeah... I think that might be the understatement of the year really.


Is Britain responsible for all the world's problems? Absolutely not. I cannot even come to say its responsible for 10%. Way too many nations have carved their niche into the world.
I agree- sadly for them, they were on top of the world for so long that the have to bear responsibility for some of the worlds border/ethnic/economic problems today. No imperial power is innocent, but damned if the British Empire was all roses and wine! It might well have been at the top at home in Blighty, but not for those that had to break their backs building the Empire.

Europa QUITE EDITING YOUR DAMN POSTS! It makes it harder to respond! :mad:

i'm british and i find it rather offensive that you think our country was to blame for that stuff when we may of found america but they took control so therefore everything they do is not our fault, i may not like the current UK goverment but they are better than some of the ones in the past.

I was referring strictly to colonies created by Britain like the USA, Australia, and parts of Canada. Perhaps even South Africa, because trust me, whatever problems the Empire caused paled by comparison to what ensued.

New Empires will arise, new problems will be created. Its not a finished and done affair. New empires are rising in the form of economic unions (EU, USA, China, Japan). They may not be of a military type, but they will dominate. Corporate exploitation of poorer nations will be at the cost of everyone. Imperialism is inevitable.

I edit my posts to avoid posting again.

I was referring strictly to colonies created by Britain like the USA, Australia, and parts of Canada. Perhaps even South Africa, because trust me, whatever problems the Empire caused paled by comparison to what ensued.
Some North African states, India, Ireland, New Zealand, parts of South America all count as colonies too you know. ;)
Problems post decolonisation? Yeah, sure I'll agree they would be nearly all the fault of the then provisional govts. I'm talking about the Imperial time- when the colonies were part and parcel of of the Empire, not after.


New Empires will arise, new problems will be created. Its not a finished and done affair. New empires are rising in the form of economic unions (EU, USA, China, Japan). They may not be of a military type, but they will dominate. Corporate exploitation of poorer nations will be at the cost of everyone. Imperialism is inevitable.
Yep. Agreed with you there. :)


I edit my posts to avoid posting again.
No worries :p

N. America, Australia and New Zealand were settled with British colonists. Ireland was already a country of its own, so I see it as a nation conquered rather than a colony. They may count as colonies, but their citizens were British. These are the nations I referred to.

Now, definitely the Empire had its problems in the imperial times. Now though there are many other problems independent of British heritage. Thus, Britain cannot be held accountable for most of the world's problems.

As for South Africa, it may not have been a British colony (more Dutch than anything else), lets just say some of us preferred the Empire.

N. America, Australia and New Zealand were settled with British colonists. Ireland was already a country of its own, so I see it as a nation conquered rather than a colony. They may count as colonies, but their citizens were British. These are the nations I referred to.
No no mate. When you import people from your own land and settle on another land that is called- colonisation. That happened over a reeeeaaaalllllyyy long time in Ireland. Hence the mix of Irish (Gaelic), Anglo-Norman, Norman-Irish, Anglo-Irish and English in general.


Now, definitely the Empire had its problems in the imperial times. Now though there are many other problems independent of British heritage. Thus, Britain cannot be held accountable for most of the world's problems.

The spawning of the current problems; more like laying the foundations say. I can't exactly blame the current generation of British subjects for their ancestors mistakes!

As for South Africa, it may not have been a British colony (more Dutch than anything else), lets just say some of us preferred the Empire.
Yeah, thats actually what I would have said- Dutch more so..but eh *shrug*

I'm also very proud of my dutch roots, as I love Europe. I still find it a shame that the USA, Australia, New Zealand and British Canada were decolonised. Luckily Canada and Australia still recognise the Crown, and many still love Britain.

Foundations are not adequate. If you were to base your argument on foundations, you could go back to ancient history. What does matter is that post-colonisation nations did nothing to quell the problems, but instead exaggerated them. Thus, Britain cannot be to blame. You could easily fault Greece for the concept of dictatorship (tyranny then) or slavery, both of which it practised in ancient times, dictatorship even more regularly than democracy or monarchy. Ancient Greece may also have had a huge part in lowering how the world viewed women by classing them as second citizens. To blame Greece for this would be pointless. Yet Roman/Greek/Germanic civilisation are the bases of Western civilisation, so we could blame them for setting the foundations. Thus, what matters is how we deal with these foundations, not blaming single countries for the actions of dozens of nations.

Foundations are not adequate. If you were to base your argument on foundations, you could go back to ancient history. What does matter is that post-colonisation nations did nothing to quell the problems, but instead exaggerated them. Thus, Britain cannot be to blame.
Wait. How so?

If some problems occured after they left (ie civil wars) is that not because of problems the Empire gave them?

Boundary disputes for example: India, Pakistan. Ireland, Northern Ireland. West Africa tribal disputes flare up because they were shunted in next to traditional enemies because some cartographer felt it was easier to draw a straight line.

Regarding going back further: True. But very few problems exist today that pertain to the Roman or Greek Empires. After they fell, smaller kingdoms and tribal areas resumed their natural boundaries (in Europe anyway) thus nearly finalising todays European borders.

Read my post again. You must realise European Justice systems have their basis in Roman Law, inasmuch as European civilisation has its roots in greco-germanic culture. Thus, foundations in this context are important and highly influential.

Read my post again. You must realise European Justice systems have their basis in Roman Law, inasmuch as European civilisation has its roots in greco-germanic culture. Thus, foundations in this context are important and highly influential.
Its hard to read it again when it changes so quickly and readily :headbang:

Justinian Law? Yeah i know. But this has been updated by more Napoleonic Law now. Influences are one thing- but highly visible problems are another. Empires of the middle ages and 19th C are much more 'current' to problems today, then the Empires of the Ancient World.

Ireland was untouched by the Roman Empire- Britain screwed that one up.

India untouched by Rome- Explored by Alexander but nothing that impacted so long lastingly into the modern era.

Many modern racial/class/social prejudices derive from Roman/Greek culture. Greece considered all non-Greeks to be lessers, and Rome invented Divide and Conquer. These notions remained set in stone within Europe, and influenced colonialist ideas. Many Greco/roman philosophies persist to this day. If you are going to base this on foundations, you cannot dismiss them. Oh yes, and Greece was the first colonial nation...it forged many colonies, and years of wars ensued between the metropoli (main cities) and their colonies.Thus, you could see them as attributable. Germanic culture glorified warfare and raids (Vikings), well into the late 19th century (modern German ideas based on ancient german expansive notions). Egypt was also a major opressor and slaver. Heck, ancient notions are to blame for women suffering such discrimination till well into the 19th Century. Blaming Britain for setting these foundations is simplistic. Foundations are not adequate basis for blame. Rather, how they are dealt with is of relevance, and for this only post colonial nations can be blamed.

Foundations are not adequate basis for blame. Rather, how they are dealt with is of relevance, and for this only post colonial nations can be blamed.

Ok. Blaming the post colonial nations themselves for problems. That a new one.

The issue of partitioning Ireland into 2 parts was the fault of the Irish themselves was it?

This issue is specific to Ireland, and is hardly a problem on a global scale, now is it? :rolleyes:

Unlike nuclear warfare (here the USA is to blame), or the status quo in many african countries riddled with corrupt dictatorships which deprive their countries of democratic government, and are the real reason due to which no matter how much aid is given to Africa, it will never come out of poverty. Or even the environment, to which the USA causes the most damage and refuses to acknowledge, a path China is not far behind. Yes, indeed countries should be blamed for worsening problems they encountered. Politicians are judged on how they fix a problem created by their predecessors very often, and nations should be no different. Most problems in this world can be remedied, it is increasing apathy and blame games that worsen them.

This issue is specific to Ireland, and is hardly a problem on a global scale, now is it? :rolleyes:

No no no. You said that the fault lies with the post colonial people. Now please explain the above scenario according to 'its their own fault' logic.

Or perhaps the India- Pakistan split?

Or perhaps the Somali- Eritrea split (not British but along the same lines)

No no no. You said that the fault lies with the post colonial people. Now please explain the above scenario according to 'its their own fault' logic.

Or perhaps the India- Pakistan split?

Or perhaps the Somali- Eritrea split (not British but along the same lines)
The responsibility of rectifying the problem to their best ability lies with the post-colonial people, yet not the fault. Faults for other problems which may spring up due to them making a mess of the situation cannot be blamed on the colonist. Only fault for the immediate repercussions of a colonist's actions can be blamed on the colonist. For instance, the colonists may have ravaged Africa, but the existence of corrupt dictatorships which devour global aid is clearly the fault of the post-colonial government. By this merit of this distinction, Britain can no longer be blamed for most problems the world faces. You cannot blame Britain for global starvation because it participated in carving up Africa, yet you could blame those who abuse global aid for prolonging the situation. This is the effect I give to my words.

Completely off-topic, but why does everyone automatically go to Aryavartha when it comes to dealing with Indian history? I am quite qualified myself, thank you very much! Not only have I been to India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh (and lived in Pakistan and Bangladesh, in each for years), but I have read a variety of books on the history of the subcontinent as well.

[/off-topic rant because ego is hurt]

:p Got an issue? Here's a tissue :rolleyes:

Anyway, I have made my point...have fun arguing over the matter :)

Yes. Exploitation of fellow man has been existing ever since the creation/evolution of mankind.

....

I am only interested in presenting our narrative, NOT the imperial narrative that is taken as the gospel truth.

Congratulations for totally misunderstanding my arguments. You seem to think that I am some sort of Empire apologist. I'm not. I'm not arguing that what the British Empire did wasn't wrong. I'm not trying to excuse what they did by saying that it was OK because everyone else was doing it. As I said in my earllier post I'm trying to show that the British Empire, solely through its size and relative recentness, happens to be merely the most obvious example of a phenomenon that has more or less characterised the entirety of mankind's history. Accordingly I am not concerned with re-writing history or giving any party line or 'narrative' as you put it, but rather with showing that comments like "British Empire = despicable Evil" in a thread that sets out to lay all the problems of the world at Britain's door are utterly inadequate and are just act as comforting insulation from accepting the fact that people, generally, the world over, are bastards.

To give an example of how differently you and I see things:

Oh poor Britain. It is the circumstances.

Those who justify British imperialism on the grounds that it was the norm and it was due to the circumstances, cannot then blame the Nazis for their crimes.

The Nazis did it due to their circumstances. Right?
This actually is quite close to my position on it. The circumstances don't excuse what the Nazis did, just as I didn't ask you to excuse what the British Empire did. However if you ignore the circumstances in which normal German people participated in mass genocide and write all the Nazis off as evil then you have totally and utterly missed the lesson that segment of history could have otherwise taught you.
The vast majority of Nazis will have been no different, no more evil, than you or I and I think you're deluding yourself if you think that this isn't the case. The things they did might have been evil, but to just call them evil, with the tacit assumption that you would have behaved differently in their situation is the height of arrogance.

(And before you call me a holocaust denier or something similar, I'm not disputing that Hitler and the other policy formers were by any definition evil, or that evil does exist that labelling an entire people in this way goes too far. )

As far as the circumstances in which the british Empire arose they were simply that they had the power, the precedent, the means and the opportunity to exploit their fellow man and get away with it. These circumstances might not seem that compelling to you, but to be honest I'm struggling to think of a single historical example where mankind has resisted this temptation. They're certainly the exceptions to the rule. This is the context to which I was referring, not merely "if we don't do colonise India, France will do it first", but rather that such behaviour is so characteristic to humankind that simple terminology such as yours is wholly inadequate.
yes yes, they had it coming, them ungrateful natives to whom the noble englishman (dare I say whiteman) spread civilisation...

How dare they try to speak out their narrative...ungrateful people I say...
I don't even know what the hell you were trying to say here or what the hell you thought I was saying; my point was that the British Empire in India could not have existed without the help of Indians who were as willing to exploit their fellow countrymen as the British and are as responsible for the suffering the lower castes experienced as the British. This is what I meant by a holier than thou attitude, an unwillingness to accept that all people, including yourself, have the potential to act like dickheads regarding others, when it's easier to pick a big target like the British Empire or the Nazis and pretend that it's got nothing to do with you.
To show how this same monolithic attitude can be harmful when talking about Imperialism, one only needs to look at the US.

The US is the archetype of a country who has styled itself as the enemy of colonialism/imperialism. They kicked the British out, gave an Evil Empire a bloody nose and are now stand as a shining beacon to everything that Imperialism isn't as such films as 'The Patriot' show. And with this monolithic view of imperialism you have the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and whatever else. No doubt many feel that they have a duty to spread democracy to these countries (white man's burden anyone?), but I'm sure few will dispute the influence big business, the desire to exploit the countries' natural resources and the desire for a pro- US government in these countries has had on the decisions to go to war. And I'm equally certain that very many Americans will still feel the same way that you do, that the British Empire was an evil entity which is over and done with and totally removed from the activities of their forebears and their own activities today.

I voted no. Britian = ?

Ireland was untouched by the Roman Empire- Britain screwed that one up.


I do think you mean England.

There is no such thing as a real democracy, that is why...


Maybe not these days but perhaps you have not come across Athenian Democracy? AKA Radical Democracy.

Here are some examples to jog your memory.
* Northern Ireland
* Palenstine
* Iraq
* Africa
* America
As mentioned by I V Stalin:
* India

Northern Ireland is self explaintory.
Africa... also self-explantory.


Sorry - didn't have a chance to read through all the posts in this thread, but was I the only one to realise what a childish post this actually is.

He gives us examples of how Britain fucked up the world:
Example Number 1: Northern Ireland - this "example" is, apparently, "self-explanatory". Come again!!! How do these two words manage to explain how Britain fucked up the world. Apparently "Africa" is also "self-expanatory".

Then he gives us examples of the good things we gave the world which, for some bizarre reason, ignores such things as the steam engine, penicillin, the smallpox vaccine and standing up alone to Nazi Germany at the start of the Second World War while the USA was sat on its fat arse and Russia was actually on the Nazi side. If it hadn't been for Britain, George W Bush would now be shouting 'Sieg Heil' every morning. Britain fucked up the world? Sorry mate, but you are a bit of a pratt.

Congratulations for totally misunderstanding my arguments. You seem to think that I am some sort of Empire apologist. I'm not. I'm not arguing that what the British Empire did wasn't wrong. I'm not trying to excuse what they did by saying that it was OK because everyone else was doing it.

I am sorry but your posts conveyed exactly that. These are your words

Saying that the British Empire is despicable evil to me is tantamount to saying that mankind itself is despicably evil.:rolleyes:

Had the British Empire not made the countries it did colonies, the only result would have been that others would have stepped into the breach to exploit the helpless natives:rolleyes:

like I said " oh if I had not raped and killed you, somebody else might have, so why you blaming me"...

The East India Company, and later the British Empire in India, would not have been able to enjoy the success it did without the complicity of willing Indians.

Yes, there were willing Indians. The divide and rule policy was a good tool. Setting up one group against the other worked very nicely.

I can give many examples.

Introducing artificial theories like Aryan invasion theory and dividing the society into artificial racial lines. Propping up Dravidian nationalism which btw is still persisting in the form of Dravidian parties in the state of Tamil Nadu.

Following the first war of Indian independance (aka Sepoy mutiny) in which troops from Bihar, Bengal and Uttar Pradesh revolted, the British stopped recruiting from those areas and started recruiting from the Northwest areas of Punjab and NWFP by propogating a myth of "martial races". This myth has so permeated the Pakistani punjabi psyche that it was one of the significant factor for the exploitation of east Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and the genocide of the "none-martial" Bengalis that followed. The belligerence of the Pak-Punjabi dominated Pak establishment is contributed in no small part by this "martial race" myth.

Yes, the Punjabi elites were willing to be subservient to the British and acted against the interests of the larger Indian society. This is due to the success of the divide and rule policy. Not because those accomplices of the British Raj made a conscious decision (in the face of better choices) to be subservient to the Raj.

Oh, but don't worry. Like how the Aryan ploy blew up in their face in the form of Hitler, the partition is also blowing up in the form of the BackPaki's on 7/7.



comments like "British Empire = despicable Evil" in a thread that sets out to lay all the problems of the world at Britain's door are utterly inadequate

Yes they are inadequate. I should have used more expletives.

with the tacit assumption that you would have behaved differently in their situation is the height of arrogance.

Yes, I would have behaved differently. Even many Britishers behaved differently. It is not arrogance. It is my morality.

It is stupid of you to think I am blaming all the British people of today. I have made it clear that I don't. But I do blame the British people of imperial times who supported the empire.

By saying that all European powers were doing imperialism does not cut it. If it had been the French who colonised India, I would be blaming the French and holding them accountable. If it had been the Spanish, I would be holding them accountable.

What is the problem here? Asking for accountability? You think we would just pretend that we will forget all the injustices done to us and sing kumbaya?

No. We have long memories. We will never forget nor forgive (unless sincere apologies were offered). And saying that "oh you had it coming, oh some of you colloborated with us, oh we were not alone in raping and killing you" does not serve any other purpose but to piss on the graves of the millions who died due to the policies of the empire.

but to be honest I'm struggling to think of a single historical example where mankind has resisted this temptation.

India is an example. Even at the peak of power, the Guptas, the Mauryas, the Kushans created huge empires but were never genocidal. Emperor Ashoka renounced war after winning the Kalinga war. Is he not an example for you?

The Cholas of south India ruled most of SE Asia, conquering Sumatra and Java. Have you heard of any atrocities committed by these empires?

Ok. Blaming the post colonial nations themselves for problems. That a new one.



That's not a new one.

Blaming the victim is a very old tactic.:)

First let me tell you that I am British, I like my country and I am patriotic. However, I shall try to be balanced.
I also apologise if I cover ground that others already have, but I do not have the time to read the whole thread.

Here are some examples to jog your memory.


* Northern Ireland
* Palenstine
* Iraq
* Africa
* America
As mentioned by I V Stalin:
* India

Northern Ireland is self explaintory.

I fail to see how that situation was directly caused by the British Government, as implied. In times when it was acceptable to march into another country and sieze their land, they did. It wasn't just the British, I think you'll find most of Europe was at it, particularly the French and Spanish.
Anyway, in 1922, when the Irish campaigned for independence, they eventually got it. In return for this, the British would keep the North part, where the larger portion of the population was Protestant. It is in both parties interests to keep the majority of Protestants under a Protestant Government and the majority of Catholics under a Catholic Government, as it is obvious that they are most compatible.
The troubles in Northern Ireland were really down to thugs from both sides with no real idea of what they were fighting for. The Government was unable / too incompetent to stop this.



Palenstine was under British mandate until the 1940s (after gaining it in World War I) when the Brits pulled out and Jews created their own country much to the displeasure of the Arabs.

Well, can you think of a better idea? If you were in charge of a country which was going under because of huge overspending and still exhausted by two wars [nearly], the only thing to do is cut expenditure. At this time, Palestine was quite a large expenditure, so it was hastily given independence. In a place where two religions that despise eachother share holy ground, there will always be tension. I think the British were just the fools who got lumbered with it.

Let's imagine things happened differently. It is 2005, and Palestine is a British mandate. The trouble is not nearly so bad, because things are managed by an impartial [hopefully] Government that isn't Jewish or Muslim [from a country where Jews and Muslims combined make up less than 4% of the population]. Order is maintained by the third party, there are little problems with things like people being moved out of their homes because somebody else wants them. Two communities can live side by side, as long as one doesn't try to dominate the other, i.e Jewish government. International media labels the British as Imperialist Evil Nation, and America has put us on the list, somewhere between Iran and North Korea.

Lose-Lose. Stay, and get labelled "too imperialist" . Leave, and get blamed for the inevitable troubles and power struggles.


Iraq, after World War One, the British lumped together three diffrent groups of people who since the dawn of Islam have mostly wanted to beat the shit out of other and kill each other (except the Kurds, who just a want country...)

"Lumped together". You could spend three times as much money building three happy friendly nations , or you could make one country. Give it a good balanced leadership and it works. When the Brits left, Saddam eventually came to power. Again, what do you expect? You said it: They have always hated eachother. So here we are again, so I'll just copy and paste down:

[i]"Lose-Lose. Stay, and get labelled "too imperialist" [I say "too" because America is being very imperialist at the moment, and that's alright]. Leave, and get blamed for the inevitable troubles and power struggles."


Africa... also self-explantory.

Is it? I don't think so.

I shall say a few words about Africa, but first thing's first. Let's look at this map:
http://www.geocities.com/cjmasonm/Africa/AfColony.gif

A large chunk of that is French, so surely they should take some of the blame. The Belgians and the Portuguese had themselves quite a piece of land there, and yet nobody thinks of them as the big bad Imperialists...

Now let's look at the figures: Richest Nations in Africa (http://www.aneki.com/africa_richest.html)
The five richest nations in Africa are Mauritius, South Africa, Botswana, Seychelles and Namibia were all British colonies when given independence. You could say that South Africa was still a "bad" place because of apartheid, but that was mainly down to those Dutch Boers who siezed power on independence. Of the top twenty richest African countries, a further six were once British. The rest are a mixture of former French, Spanish and Italian colonies.
On the other hand, take a look at the fifteen poorest countries in Africa.
Two were formerly Belgian, two were formerly Italian, two were Independent, one was portugese, four were French and four were British. Perhaps I should point out that of these, two of the former British colonies were destroyed by civil war AFTER independence, and most of the other thirteen are in desertified terrain and/or mobbed by disease. I find it hard to believe that poverty is the fault of the British Government, nor the other Europeans that ruled in Europe. Africa's biggest problems were not caused by these people, but were not helped. The only crime committed by the British, and the French, and the Americans, and just about all of the richest nations, is not helping these countries enough from the 80s, when poverty really took hold. The 1980s were not a time of colonialism. The troubles were caused by civil wars and famine post-independence.

The British Empire did do a lot for its colonies. Other Empires pillaged and used these places, but the British did things a little differently. This will sound all too rose-tinted, and all too propaganda-motivated, but I think it is actually true. The British Empire lasted longer than many others because it did its best to ensure a relatively good lifestyle. There were many bad things, I cannot deny this, but there were many good things as well. Look at French Guiana, a current French colony. It only uses the French flag. The people speak French and are Roman Catholic, even though 66% of the population are "natives". Look at a random former British colony. Take Kenya. 99% of the population are "natives". English is an official language, however, it shares that title with Kiswahili, and numerous indigenous languages are commonly spoken. Not only were they allowed semi-autonomy, but a lot of money that the colonies raised was put back into them. Infrastructure and industry was built. A country like South Africa is more industrialised and better off in many ways, because more was spent on it during the colonial era. The same goes for Egypt. You can also say that many of the old British colonies are in a better state now, simply because they were "looked after".


America is just a joke. But well they did tax and we formed our own country which is ruled by a moron and has been ruled other morons in the past, but hey, it's beats out living under the British.

Something many Americans forget is that the majority of them would not be there if it wasn't for the British. You say "we formed our own country". The people who did this were really British people. Of course, you may not have overlooked this, but that is how I read it.
I'm also interested to know whats wrong with living under the British. I'm assuming that you are a member of the 80% of the US population who are white. Therefore of British [or other European] ancestry. You also speak our language, albeit with many alterations. I see no problem living under the British if you are of British descent. I live with it...


[u]DISCLAIMER:To all people of British decent or who are British. I do not hate you.

That goes without saying. I do not hate you, nor do I wish to cause any offence to anybody or any group.


I just hate the crown and the goverments past actions.

May I ask why you hate the crown? It is a ceremonial figurehead. Like a living Uncle-Sam-sort-of-figure. The thing that unites the British.

The Government's past actions may have been misguided, and even foolish, in many instances, but I think you cannot pin the world's problems on this one country. There are any number of problems caused by other Governments. I'm not denying the British had no problems, because they did. But not ALL of them.

What about Islamic Fundamentalism against the West? I think it is fair to say that a large part of that was caused by "American colonialism". This is done at a corporate level. Huge American multinationals taking over. However, there is also the Interventionalist US governments. Wars / political actions in Muslim states.
What about Global Warming? Just about every industrialised nation contributed to that.



I think it is completely unfair to say that Britain caused most of the World's problems.

Long post alert

Excerpts from the book, The people of India.

SHAKING THE PAGODA-TREE

IN THE early days of their trade the British merchants were obliged to pay the Indian manufacturers in gold or silver, since Britain produced nothing of use to the Indians. But accumulation of precious metals was the hallmark of wealth, and it was painful for the British traders to take money out of the country. Hence, from the beginning they hunted for some other means of obtaining the money needed to pay for Indian goods. An important source was the auxiliary trade in slaves from Africa.

No money was needed to capture the Africans; it was done by the judicious use of alcoholic beverages and by rounding them up by force. The slaves were then sold to the Spaniards in South America to be made to work for nothing in the silver mines. A portion of the silver thus obtained by the sale of Negro slaves went to pay the Indian manufacturers for their goods. Economically, the three continents of Asia, Africa and America were thus linked long before the airplane.

The rivalry for power following the death of Aurangzeb gave the Company an opportunity to collect money in India itself by lending its support to various rival groups. The gradual acquisition of limited territorial rights increased its income. Piracy on the high seas also helped swell its coffers. By 1750, before the conquest of Bengal, the East India Company had grown wealthy enough to have loaned or given no less than £4,200,000 to the British Treasury.

But real, systematic exploitation of the Indian people started with the Battle of Plassey in 1757. Already the potentialities of India to increase the wealth of England had been recognized by the coining of the celebrated compound word "pagoda-tree," derived from a South-Indian currency known as "pagoda." From the time of the conquest of Bengal, shaking the pagoda-tree became almost literally the national sport of England.

1

The Directors of the Company in England had a fantastic conception of the wealth of Bengal, and unbelievable demands were made upon it. In Madras and Bombay the English were constantly involved in intrigue and wars of conquest; Bengal paid the cost of them. If there was a deficit from these parts of India due to mismanagement, misappropriation of funds and the greed of individual employees of the Company, Bengal was expected to make up for it. The revenue from Bengal had also to pay for the purchase of commodities to be sold by the Company in Europe! Bengal became an Aladdin's lamp in the hands of the Company. Wild rapine and misery inevitably followed.

2

When Mir Jafar was made the puppet nawab of Bengal in 1757, not only did "presents" flow into the pockets of Clive and other members of the Company, but the floodgates were opened to the internal trade of the three provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. Employees of the Company were not content with arbitrarily assuming the right to trade duty free; in the mad quest for profit they perpetrated incredible horrors on the workers and artisans.

The following letter gives a vivid picture of the first fruits of the Company's rise to power. In May, 1762, Mir Qasim wrote to the Company:

"In every Perganah (fiscal district), every village, and every factory, they (the Company's agents) buy and sell salt, betel-nut, ghee (clarified butter), rice, straw, bamboos, fish, gunnies, ginger, sugar, tobacco, opium, and many other things. . . . They forcibly take away the goods and commodities of the Reiats (peasants), merchants, &c., for a fourth part of their value; and by ways of violence and oppressions they oblige the Reiats, &c., to give five rupees for goods which are worth but one rupee."

Sergeant Brego wrote a letter on May 26, 1762 from Backergunz, a prosperous Bengal district:

"A gentleman sends a Gomastah here to buy or sell; he immediately looks upon himself as sufficient to force every inhabitant either to buy his goods or sell him theirs; and on refusal (in case of non-capacity) a flogging or confinement immediately ensues. This is not sufficient even when willing, but a second force is made use of, which is to engross the different branches of trade to themselves, and not to suffer any person to buy or sell the articles they trade in . . . and again, what things they purchase, they think the least they can do is to take them for a considerable deal less than another merchant, and oftentimes refuse paying that . . . this place is growing destitute of inhabitants; every day numbers leave the town to seek a residence more safe, and the markets, which before afforded plenty, do hardly now produce anything of use."

In October 1762, Mahomed Ali, the Moslem collector of revenues in the city of Dacca, wrote:

". . . the Gomastahs of Luckypoor and Dacca factories oblige the merchants, &c., to take tobacco, cotton, iron, and sundry other things, at a price exceeding that of the bazaar (market), and then extort the money from them by force."

William Bolts, an English merchant, wrote in his "Considerations on Indian Affairs," published in 1772:

"It may with truth be now said that the whole inland trade of the country, as at present conducted. . . . has been one continued scene of oppression . . . every article being produced being made a monopoly; in which the English, with their Banyans and black Gomastahs, arbitrarily decide what quantities of goods each manufacturer shall deliver, and the prices he shall receive for them. . . . The assent of the poor weaver is in general not necessary. . . . The roguery practised in this department is beyond imagination; but all terminates in the defrauding of the poor weaver; for the prices which the Company's Gomastahs, and in confederacy with them the Jachendars (examiners of fabrics) fix upon the goods, are in all places at least 15 per cent, and in some even 40 per cent less than the goods so manufactured would sell in the public bazaar or market upon free sale. . . . Weavers, also, upon their inability to perform such agreements as have been forced upon them . . . have had their goods seized and sold on the spot to make good the deficiency. . . ."

The British were thus practically looting the countryside as well as underselling the Indian traders, forcing them to the wall.

3

The thin line of demarcation between trade and plunder reached almost to the vanishing point by 1765, when Clive secured from the nominal emperor of India the right of collecting revenue and of civil administration as well, in the three provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.

Clive was asked by the Directors of the Company to stabilize their possessions in India. And stabilization to Clive meant finding ways and means by which India could be made even more systematically profitable to England. In his letter of September 30, 1765, to the Directors, Clive wrote:

"Your revenues, by means of this acquisition, will, as near as I can judge, not fall far short for the ensuing year of 250 lakhs of Sieca Rupees [a lakh is a hundred thousand, and eight rupees were equivalent to a pound then. K.G.], including your former possession of Burdwan, &c. Hereafter they will at least amount to 20 or 30 lakhs more. Your civil and military expenses in time of peace can never exceed 60 lakhs of Rupees; the Nabob's allowances are already reduced to 42 lakhs, and the tribute to the King (the Moghul emperor) at 26; so that there will be remaining a clear gain to the Company of 122 lakhs of, Sicca Rupees, or £1,650,000 sterling."

This was the benefit Bengal derived from being brought under the direct administration of the Company. One-quarter of the total annual revenue was considered sufficient for the purposes of government; one-quarter was still found necessary to be used as an opiate for dispossessed rulers; and the rest, nearly half the revenue, more than one and a half million pounds sterling, was sent out of India for the shareholders of the Company.

In the Fourth Report of the House of Commons, 1773, the following figures are given about the revenues and expenses of Bengal for the six years ending 1770-71: The total net revenue was £13,066,761; the total expenditure was £9,027,609; and "clear gain," sent to England, amounted to £4,037,152, or nearly one-third of the total.

Could a businessman ask for more? He could--and did. And got it. Clive did nothing to combat the illegal trade carried on by individual employees of the Company. On the contrary, he took precautions to protect this trade in case the Directors themselves took steps to stop it. On the 18th of September, 1765, he executed a mutual contract with other employees of the Company to carry on private trade regardless of what the Company might or might not do. This indenture stated in part:

"Provided any order should issue or be made by the said Court of Directors in England, thereby ordering and directing the said joint trade and merchandise to be dissolved or put to an end, or that may hinder and stop the carrying on of the same, or any part thereof, . . . then, in that case, they, the said Robert Lord Clive, as President, William Brightwell Sumner, &c., as Council of Fort William [in Calcutta, Bengal. K.G.] aforesaid, shall and will, well and truly save harmless and keep indemnified, then, the said William Brightwell Sumner, Harry Verelst, Ralph Leycester, and George Grey, and all the proprietors entitled, or to be entitled, to the said exclusive joint trade, and their successors, their executors, and administrators.

Private trading, already monopolized by the Company's employees, flourished as never before. Clive stated that fortunes of £100,000 were made in two years. He himself went home with more than a quarter of a million pounds, in addittion to an estate bringing in £27,000 a year.

No longer did the Company have to worry about taking money out of England; even by 1763, there was exultation over this fact. "These glorious successes," wrote L. Scrafton, a member of the Company's Council in 1763, "have brought near three millions of money to the nation; for, properly speaking, almost the whole of the immense sums received from the Soubah ( Bengal) finally centers in England. So great a proportion of it fell into the Company's hands . . . that they have been enabled to carry on the whole trade of India ( China excepted) for three years together, without sending one ounce of bullion."

These examples naturally had a profound effect in England. From every strata of English society hands were stretched out to be dipped into the seemingly inexhaustible bowl of riches from Bengal. In 1767, Parliament ordered the Company to pay 1400,000 annually to the British Treasury; the payments were kept up until 1773. The Proprietors of the Company clamored for higher dividends.

Jobbery and nepotism became unrestrained. "Directors and Directors' relatives," write Thompson and Garratt, "peers, even the Royal Family, saw no reason why they should not push a young friend or dependent into service which within an incredibly brief period would bring him back enormously enriched." 15 Boys in their teens went out to India to become employees of the Company, collectors of revenue, or any other position they could get, with one thought only, that of returning home as a Nabob in the shortest possible time.

In the Company's possessions in other parts of India conditions were even worse. From their headquarters in Madras the Company's representatives carried on constant intrigue and plunder. On the pretext of having loaned money to various Indian princes--these loans being sometimes authentic, sometimes fraudulent--individual employees of the Company secured the rights to the revenues of villages and towns of various sizes, where they mercilessly squeezed the inhabitants. In case of refusal or militant resistance by the people, the employees resorted to the Company's armed forces for collection. The Indian money-lender had found a more ruthless competitor in the British money-lender.

Before the Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1782, this revealing testimony was given:

" George Smith, Esquire, attending according to order, was asked how long he resided in India, where, and in what capacity? He said he arrived in India in the year 1764; he resided in Madras from 1767 to October 1779. Being asked what was the state of trade at Madras at the time when he first knew it, he said it was in a flourishing condition, and Madras one of the first marts in India. Being asked in what condition did he leave it with respect to trade, he replied at the time of leaving it, there was little or no trade, and but one ship belonging to the place. Being asked in what state the interior country of the Karnatic was with regard to commerce and cultivation when he first knew it, he said at that period he understood the Karnatic to be in a well-cultivated and populous condition, and as such consuming a great many articles of merchandise and trade. Being asked in what condition it was when he left Madras with respect to cultivation, population, and internal commerce, he said in respect to cultivation, greatly on the decline, and also in respect of population; and as to commerce, exceedingly circumscribed."

The covetous eyes of the Directors in England had developed telescopic powers of locating lucrative territories in India which the Company did not yet possess. If by some chance local representatives had failed to notice them, the Directors pointed them out.

There was, for example, the principality of Tanjore. Its rajah had been precariously holding his own by nimbly sidestepping controversial issues being settled by the sword and gun all around him. "It appears most unreasonable to us," pointed out the eagle-eyed Directors in their letter of March 17, 1769, "that the Rajah of Tanjore should hold possession of the most fruitful part of the country, which can alone supply an army with subsistence, and not contribute to the defense of the Karnatic." The Company, therefore, was advised to find excuses for remedying this unprofitable situation. They did, with what result can be seen from the following evidence given before the Committee of Secrecy, 1782:

"Not many years ago," said Mr. Petrie, "that province (Tanjore) was considered as one of the most flourishing, best cultivated, populous districts in Hindustan. Tanjore was formerly a place of great foreign and inland trade; it imported cotton from Bombay and Surat, raw and worked silks from Bengal, sugar, spices, &c. . . . gold, horses, elephants and timbers from Pegu, and various articles of trade from China. . . . The exports of Tanjore were muslins, chintz, handkerchiefs, ginghams, various sorts of long-cloths . . . it possesses a rich and fertile soil, singularly well supplied with water from the two great rivers Cavery and Coleroon, which, by means of reservoirs, sluices, and canals, are made to disperse their waters through almost every field in the country. . . . Such was Tanjore not many years ago, but its decline has been so rapid, that in many districts it would be difficult to trace the remains of its former opulence."

By 1773, trade, manufacture and agriculture were ruined, and the inhabitants left Tanjore by the thousands in quest of a more secure abode.

As has been said before, much of the cost of wars in other parts of India was borne by Bengal. This, together with the ceaseless demands for more and yet more profits resulted in the most reckless raising of the land revenue demands of Bengal. For inability to meet the land tax peasant properties, including even bullocks and seed corn, were confiscated. If that did not suffice, land was ruthlessly taken away from the people and sold to the highest bidder.

Bengal, too, began to appear as desolated as Madras and Tanjore. From the once prosperous city of Murshidabad, in Bengal, the Company's representative, Becher, wrote in 1769: "It must give pain to an Englishman to have reason to think that since the accession of the Company to the Dewani (civil administration) the condition of the people of this country has been worse than it was before, and yet I am afraid the fact is undoubted. . . . I well remember this country when Trade was free and the flourishing State it was then in; with Concern I now see its present ruinous Condition, which I am convinced is greatly owing to the Monopoly that has been made of late years in the Company's Name of almost all the Manufactures in the Country."

To climax all this, there was a famine in Bengal in 1770. Added to the shortage of foodstuff, whatever was available was bought up by the Company's servants, who refused to sell it except at exorbitant prices. One-third of the population-nearly ten million--perished as a result. Yet the land revenue was rigorously collected; it even showed an increase, for ten per cent was added to the revenue, by which the living had to make up the loss thoughtlessly inflicted by the dead.

On November 3, 1772, Warren Hastings, in charge of the Company's affairs in Calcutta, reported:

"Notwithstanding the loss of at least one-third of the inhabitants of the province, and the consequent decrease of the cultivation, the net collections of the year 1771 exceeded even those of 1768 . . . owing to its being violently kept up to its former standard."

The following figures speak for themselves: Under the last nawab of Bengal, the land revenue realized in 1764-65 was £817,000; in the first year of the Company's administration of Bengal, 1765-66, it rose to £1,470,000; in 1771-72 it was £2,341,000; in 1775-76, it was £2,818,000; and in 1793, it was fixed at £3,400,000.

While Clive was eloquently telling the Directors in England that they "had acquired an empire more extensive than any kingdom in Europe, France and Russia excepted" and "a revenue of four millions sterling, and a trade in proportion," the people of this empire were being bled white to keep up the flow of tribute to England. And, looking at all this, the popular poet of the time wondered as he sang to the MotherGoddess:

"Mother, to some you have given wealth, horses, elephants, charioteers, conquest. And the lot of others is field labor, with rice and vegetables. Some live in palaces, as I myself would like to do. O Mother, are these fortunate folk your grandfathers--and I no relation at all? . . . Some ride in palkis (palanquins), while I have the privilege of carrying the shoulder-pole."

4

By 1773, though much wealth had flowed into England, the Company's affairs in India were in an unbelievable mess. In the quest for territory and profit, they had made promises and indiscriminately signed bewildering and often contradictory treaties with the various contending princes. Civil administration was totally ineffective. In their misery, vast numbers of people had turned to robbery, which added to the chaos. Parliament set up an inquiry, which resulted in the Regulating Act of 1773.

This Act brought the Company's domain under the partial supervision of the British Government. It set up a GovernorGeneral at Calcutta, and a Council of four advisers. A Supreme Court was also established in Calcutta.

Warren Hastings, who had already been in the employ of the Company for many years, was appointed first GovernorGeneral. He appointed English collectors of revenues to the provinces. A civil and a criminal court were established in. each district, presided over by the Collectors.

The Collectors proved just as greedy as their predecessors, and were replaced with Provincial Councils. Various experiments were made with the land-tax, always with an eye to increasing the revenue.

There was no cessation of warfare, only a change in tactics. Hastings made an effort to streamline everything. He cut down some of the allowances paid to the dispossessed nawabs and princes, and totally eliminated others.

But nothing was done to relieve the burden on the people. Hastings has been praised by many historians for bringing "the unique gift of peace" to the province of Bengal. Yet it is certainly open to question if peace at any price is the most desirable of all goals.

In fact, all was not as serene in Bengal as has been made out by many writers. It was during this period that peasant revolts, spontaneous and unorganized, broke out in many parts of India under the Company, including Bengal. According to Mr. Goodland, the Company's representative in the rebellious area, the Bengal peasant revolt was the most serious one which ever happened in that province; it was suppressed with a cruelty equally unexampled.

In Bengal, also, a guerilla band, with a mixture of religious and patriotic zeal, carried on lightning attacks on the Company's transports and distributed their loot to the poor people. The tradition of guerilla warfare is an old one in India; the Sanyasis (wandering monks), as the Bengal guerillas were known, developed such an effective technique that it took many years to finally crush them. It may be of interest to note that in the latter part of the nineteenth century, a play dealing with the exploits of the Sanyasis was forbidden production by the British Government.

5

Hastings' administration, though it had expanded the territorial possessions of the Company, had simultaneously increased the number of sufferers from the exploitation of the Company and its employees. Graft, plunder and nepotism flourished as before, and over a more extended area. There was a famine in Madras, in which the people went through unspeakable suffering, although the revenue showed a surplus.

The British Parliament set up another inquiry, as a result of which it passed Pitt's India Bill on the 13th of August, 1784. It placed the administration of the Company's possessions under the Crown. Six Commissioners were appointed to supervise the civil, military, and revenue affairs of the Company. Lord Cornwallis was appointed Governor-General with enlarged powers.

Between 1784 and 1813, various administrative schemes were improvised, but none were for the people's benefit. Being both trader and administrator, the East India Company was in an anomalous position. In everything it did, it instinctively looked to the enhancement of its financial returns. It was primarily interested in raising an increasing amount of revenue from the Indian possessions. Even when its intentions were of the best--which was not often--there was inevitably a conflict between its own interests and those of the people it governed.

As administrators, the Company's main source of revenue was from land. Many experiments were made to secure the maximum amount of revenue the land would yield. The oppressed peasantry either left their land or rebelled. In industrially advanced Bengal the Indian merchants and bankers were wiped out by trade monopoly of the country systematically passing into the hands of the Company's employees.

Bengal was the milch cow of the Company, and here the discontent of all classes was most acute. Lord Cornwallis' first job was to put Bengal in order. He eventually hit upon a scheme, which was put into effect in 1793. This was the famous Permanent Settlement of land.

By the Permanent Settlement, Indians who had been collectors of revenue from a number of villages were made landlords of these villages, subject to a payment to the Government. The amount of the rent was fixed in perpetuity, and it was raised as high as was possible at the time, amounting to ten-elevenths of the total payments the cultivators were currently making.

The consequences of the Permanent Settlement were manifold. Since the rent was fixed very high, many of the previous collectors failed to meet them; they were dispossessed and their land was put up for auction, and some of the Indian merchants and bankers bought them as investments. To keep up the payments, these new Zemindars, or landlords, rack-rented the peasantry. At one stroke the discontent of a few Indian capitalists were for the time being pacified by giving them an outlet for their investment, and the resentment of the peasantry was diverted away from the Company and toward the Zemindars.

In order to continue exploiting the peasantry, however, the Zemindars had eventually to depend upon the armed might of the Company to back them up. Thus these newly created Zemindars formed a group of powerful supporters of the status quo. On November 8, 1829, Lord William Bentinck, then Governor-General, said:

"If security was wanting against extensive popular tumult or revolution, I should say that the Permanent Settlement, though a failure in many other respects and in its most important essentials, has this great advantage at least, of having created a vast body of rich landed proprietors deeply interested in the continuance of the British Dominion and having complete Command over the mass of the people." 16

The failure "in its most important essentials," of which Bentinck spoke, was in relation to financial returns. By methods of extreme harshness the Zemindars gradually increased their share of the spoils, while the Company's share, fixed permanently, became proportionately less. In 1940, for example, the total rents in Bengal under the Permanent Settlement amounted to about £12,000,000, and the Government's share was about £3,000,000, at which it had been fixed long ago.

Permanent Settlement was utilized only where it was needed to solidify the Company's position; in the rest of the Company's possessions in India, arrangements were later made either with Zemindars on a temporary basis, or with individual farmers to pay rent direct to the Government, subject to periodic reassessment of their land.

And land was always assessed upward. The increase in the revenue of Bengal has already been noted. After sufficient territory had been conquered to turn Bombay into a province, the land revenue collected in the first year, 1817-18, was £868,047; in 1820-21 it had risen to £1,818,314, and it was to continue rising for many decades. The land revenue of Punjab in 1847-48 was £820,000. In 1849 Punjab came under the direct control of the British, and in three years the revenue increased to £1,060,989. The identical pattern was followed with each new acquisition of territory.

6

India's economic relations with England had undergone a fundamental change by the turn of the nineteenth century. For the Industrial Revolution had come in England.

What did the Industrial Revolution mean? It meant that England had developed methods by which commodities could be manufactured in mass quantities in large factories. To build large factories required extensive capital, mass production machinery, and people who would be willing to work in these factories at wages that would allow a profit to be made by the investors of capital. Thus three things were needed for the Industrial Revolution: capital, machinery and unemployed labor. How did these three happen to be present simultaneously in England in the 18th century?

Up to the year 1760, machines used in cotton manufacture were as simple as those of India. Manufacture of woolen goods was the only industry, and woolen goods and grain were the chief exports.

Trade had increased greatly. Export of wheat, for example, rose from 1,160,000 qrs. in 1697-1705 to 9,515,000 in 1746-65. This helped increase the accumulation of capital in England.

Trade in commodities from India and other colonial possessions, in which the British had a monopoly, helped swell this accumulation. And to this was added the sudden flood of wealth which flowed from India, especially after the Battle of Plassey in 1757.

The growth of the woolen industry had resulted in many farms being turned into sheep pasture, thereby throwing thousands of peasants out of work. Increasing demand for farm products had necessitated improved methods of agriculture. Farms had grown larger in size and more compact, which could be run with less hands. Peasants who lost their livelihood through this improvement, also swelled the ranks of the unemployed.

There were other indications that the time was ripe for the Industrial Revolution. The eighteenth century wars were large-scale and lasted many years. They were waged by professional armies who were in constant need of certain particular kinds of goods. "Armies now wore regular uniforms," writes A. L. Morton, "and needed thousands of yards of cloth of a specified colour and quality, needed boots and buttons, needed muskets all capable of firing bullets of a definite calibre and bayonets all made to fix exactly on to these muskets. Not only the British armies had to be fed, clothed and equipped, but many of the armies of Britain's allies, who depended equally upon her subsidies and her industry to keep them in the field.

"It was this demand for ever-increasing quantities of standard goods, and not the genius of this or that inventor, which was the basic cause of the Industrial Revolution."

This growing demand for standardized goods forced men to search and experiment for mass production methods, which was the only way they could be produced. But even this search would have been fruitless if the necessary capital and labor power were not available. In the latter half of the eighteenth century, however, all of these requirements--incentive, tremendous capital accumulation and unemployed labor-power-were simultaneously present.


It is generally thought that the Industrial Revolution was the result of a series of inventions; that James Watt almost singlehandedly brought it into being. As a matter of fact, there were similar inventions in existence before, but they were neglected because the conditions necessary for their profitable use were absent at the time. "In 1733 Kay patented his flyshuttle," writes G. H. Perris, "and in 1738 Wyatt patented his roller-spinning machine worked by water-power; but neither of these inventions seems to have come into use." After the conquest of Bengal by the East India Company, a great series of inventions coincided with the tremendous flow of wealth from India.

"The influx of the Indian treasure," writes Brooks Adams, "by adding considerably to the nation's cash capital, not only increased its stock of energy, but added much to its flexibility and the rapidity of its movement. Very soon after Plassey, the Bengal plunder began to arrive in London, and the effect appears to have been instantaneous; for all the authorities agree that the 'industrial revolution,' the event which has divided the nineteenth century from all antecedent time, began with the year 1760. Prior to 1760, according to Baines, the machinery used for spinning cotton in Lancashire was almost as simple as in India; while about 1750 the English iron industry was in full decline because of the destruction of the forests for fuel. At that time four-fifths of the iron used in the kingdom came from Sweden.

"Plassey was fought in 1757, and probably nothing has ever equalled the rapidity of the change which followed. In 1760 the flying shuttle appeared, and coal began to replace wood in smelting. In 1764 Hargreaves invented the spinning jenny, in 1776 Crompton contrived the mule, in 1785 Cartwright patented the power loom, and, chief of all, in 1768 Watt matured the steam engine, the most perfect of all vents of centralising energy. But, though these machines served as outlets for the accelerating movement of the time, they did not cause that acceleration. In themselves inventions are passive, many of the most important having lain dormant for centuries, waiting for a sufficient store of force to have accumulated to set them working. That store must always take the shape of money, and money not hoarded, but in motion. Before the influx of the Indian treasure, and the expansion of credit which followed, no force sufficient for this purpose existed; and had Watt lived fifty years earlier, he and his invention must have perished together. Possibly since the world began, no investment has ever yielded the profit reaped from the Indian plunder, because for nearly fifty years Great Britain stood without a competitor. From 1694 to Plassey ( 1757) the growth had been relatively slow. Between 1760 and 1815 the growth was very rapid and prodigious."

Thus the wealth drained from India was a major contributing factor in the industrialization of England. Some of the ingredients that went into the building of modern England were the "blood, sweat and tears" of the Indian peasantry and artisans.

7

The Industrial Revolution brought mass production methods to the manufacture of goods; it was soon necessary to find a market outside England to absorb the surplus. Rapidly increasing volume of production also required a greater supply of certain raw materials which England either produced in limited quantities, or did not produce at all.

Manufacturers of English goods began to cast longing eyes upon India. Here was a vast territory whose people, if they could be turned into customers, would provide an immense outlet for a constant flow of goods made in England. India also was rich in raw materials the English manufacturers needed. Where India had been looked upon as an inexhaustible source of wealth in terms of goods salable in Europe and just plain plunder, now she was to be transformed into an equally inexhaustible source of wealth as a consumer of English goods and supplier of raw material. The process was reversed, but the Aladdin's lamp attitude toward India remained the same.

This gave rise to serious internal conflicts in England. If India were to be used as a producer of raw materials and a consumer of English goods, obviously it would put the East India Company traders out of business. The Company was still economically powerful enough, however, to fight hard for survival. So the attack made upon it by the rising industrialists and their spokesmen took on a moral tone, washing in public all the dirty linen in the closet of the Company.

This was the period when, before a Parliamentary Committee, witness after witness testified to the appalling condition of the people of India under the rule of the Company. Incredible stories of graft, greed, fraud, extortion and peculation, of territorial conquest by means of intrigue, forgery and bribery, were bared to the Committee. "Were we to be driven out of India this day, nothing would remain to tell that it had been possessed, during this inglorious period of our dominion, by anything better than the ourangoutang or the tiger," thundered Edmund Burke in England. And from India Governor-General Lord Cornwallis soon reported: "I may safely assert that one third of the Company's territory in Hindustan is now a jungle inhabited only by wild beasts."

However, it was not so much through invective nor through exposure of corruption that the East India Company's monopoly trade in Indian goods was ended; it was the result of the forces of the new economy. The rising English industrialists were economically stronger and, since they stood for an advanced mode of production, represented a more progressive social force. They were also helped by other merchants who resented the monopoly of the Company. And the new economic Messiah, Adam Smith, was championing "free trade."

The onslaught on the East India Company began in the latter part of the eighteenth century, but was interrupted by the world-shaking French Revolution. Afterwards it was renewed; in 1813, the monopoly of the East India Company in trade with India was ended by Parliament, and in 1833, they were forbidden trade altogether.

8

The growing British industries had demanded and received protection from the competition of Indian goods even before 1813. To protect the British cotton industry, a duty of 78 per cent had been imposed on Indian calicoes. "The cotton and silk goods of India up to the period ( 1813)," wrote H. H. Wilson, "could be sold for a profit in the British market at a price from 50% to 60% lower than those fabricated in England. It consequently became necessary to protect the latter by duties of 70% and 80% on their value, or by positive prohibition. Had this not been the case, had not such prohibitory duties and decrees existed, the mills of Paisley and Manchester would have stopped in their outset, and could scarcely have been again set in motion, even by the power of steam. They were created by the sacrifice of the Indian manufacture."

British industries not only had the advantage of a superior technology, but the State itself assisted their growth by building protective fences around them. Even in the early nineteenth century British cotton and silk goods entering India paid a duty of 3½ per cent and woolen goods 2 per cent, while Indian cotton goods imported into Britain paid 10 per cent, silk goods 20 per cent, and woolen goods 30 per cent. It took the combined strength of modern machinery and State power to destroy the Indian manufacturing industries and open up the Indian market for British goods.

Between 1814 and 1835 the number of Indian cotton piecegoods imported into Britain fell from 1,250,000 pieces to 306,000 pieces; by 1844 the number had dwindled to 63,000 pieces. During the same period British cotton manufactures exported to India rose from less than 1,000,000 yards to over 51,000,000 yards. The value of Indian cotton goods exported between 1815 and 1832 fell from 11.3 million to below £100,000, whereas the value of English cotton goods imported into India rose from £26,000 to £400,000. India had for centuries exported cotton goods to the whole world; her fine fabrics were used four thousand years ago by Egyptians to wrap their mummies and were prized by the Greeks under the name of "gangetica"; but by 1850 she was importing one-fourth of all British cotton exports.


Other British products poured into India alongside of cotton goods. Between 1818 and 1836 the export of cotton twist from England expanded 5,200 times. Silks, woolens, ironwork, pottery, glass and paper were sent to India in ever increasing quantities. Indian steel had been well-known throughout the world. The famous Damascus blades were forged from steel imported from Hyderabad in India. In a previous chapter mention has been made of the superb iron column in Delhi. "In India steel was used for weapons, for decorative purposes and for tools," writes D. H. Buchanan, "and remarkably high grade articles were produced. . . . Remains of old smelting furnaces found throughout India are essentially like those in Europe prior to modern times. . . .

"The Agarias, or iron smelting caste, were widely dispersed, and the name lohara (from "loha," iron) is applied to a great many districts producing iron ore. But the introduction of cheaply made European iron has taken away nearly all their trade, and most Agarias have turned to unskilled labor."

The policy of discouraging the development of industries in the colonies was applied to the American colonies as well. For example, when the smelting of iron had reached some importance in New England in the eighteenth century, the manufacture of iron and steel goods there was prohibited, and the raw iron had to be shipped across the Atlantic to England, from where the Americans had to import manufactured iron goods for their own use.

The Indian spinners, weavers, and other artisans and handicraftsmen, lacking modern machinery and without State protection, were completely ruined. In England, too, hand-looms had been displaced by modern machinery; but the unemployed handicraft workers had been sponged up by the factories springing up everywhere. But in India there was no compensating development of industries, nor was such development permitted.

Within a short time the prosperous, old, populous manufacturing towns of India were in ruins. Dacca, Murshidabad, Surat, Tanjore, and other places were as desolate as though a pestilence had swept over them. "The population of the town of Dacca has fallen from 150,000 to 30,000 or 40,000," testified Sir Charles Trevelyan at the Parliamentary enquiry in 1840, "and the jungle and malaria are fast encroaching upon the town . . . Dacca, which was the Manchester of India, has fallen off from a very flourishing town to a very poor and small one; the distress there has been great indeed." "The decay and destruction," declared the historian Montgomery Martin at the same enquiry, "of Surat, of Dacca, of Murshidabad and other places where native manufactures have been carried on, is too painful a fact to dwell upon. I do not consider that it has been in the fair course of trade; I think it has been the power of the stronger exercized over the weaker." And in 1890 Sir Henry Cotton wrote: "Less than a hundred years ago the whole commerce of Dacca was estimated at one crore (ten million) of rupees, and its population 200,000 souls. In 1787 the exports of Dacca muslin to England amounted to 30 lakhs (3 million) of rupees; in 1817 they had ceased altogether. The arts of spinning and weaving, which for ages afforded employment to a numerous and industrial population, have now become extinct. Families which were formerly in a state of affluence have been driven to desert the towns and betake themselves to the villages for a livelihood . . . This decadence has occurred not in Dacca only, but in all districts. Not a year passes in which the Commissioners and District officers do not bring to the notice of Government that the manufacturing classes in all parts of the country are becoming impoverished."

Millions of dispossessed and disinherited artisans and craftsmen, spinners, weavers, potters, tanners, smelters, smiths, and others were leaving the towns. But where could they go? Ironically enough, connection with the first industrialized country in the world brought a retrogression in the economy of India; where the unemployed British handicraft workers had flocked to the rising industrial metropolises, the Indians were forced to return to the villages and fall back on agriculture. This was the beginning of the terrible overpressure on land which to this day remains one of the most pressing problems of Indian economy.

India was not only to be exploited as a market for British goods, but as a producer of raw material as well. Thomas Bazley, President of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, declared before the 1840 Parliamentary Committee: "In India there is an immense extent of territory, and the population of it would consume British manufactures to a most enormous extent. The whole question with respect to our Indian trade is whether they can pay us, by the products of their soil, for what we are prepared to send out as manufactures."

This was simple and clearcut enough. Even before Bazley spoke, in 1833, Englishmen were given permission to acquire land and set up as planters in India. Slavery had been abolished the same year in the West Indies; but the plantation system which developed in India merely skirted the laws against slavery. In fact, there was a rush from America and the West Indies of planters experienced in handling slaves, who brought their own ideas and practices with them. An example of how they operated is furnished by the Indigo Commission of 1860, which was set up as a result of violent outbreaks in the indigo plantations. It was found that the planters treated the workers as slaves, cheated them in the measure of the land and of the weed, put them in stocks, flogged and otherwise oppressed them. Dinabandhu Mitra, the great dramatist of Bengal, exposed the condition of indigo workers in a brilliant play, Nil Darpan (The Mirror of Indigo). The play was proscribed, and Rev. James Long, a missionary, was fined and imprisoned by the High Court of Calcutta for translating this play into English. European indigo planters were curbed after 1859.

Conditions were no better in tea plantations. Simple peasant men and women were bound down by penal clauses, upon their signing a contract, to work in "tea gardens" (sic) under appalling conditions. The contract signed by the plantation workers was aptly termed by Indians "the Slave Law," and workers received no relief until the twentieth century.

The export of raw material from India increased rapidly, especially after 1833. In 1813, India exported 9 million pounds of raw cotton; in 1833 it was 32 million; in 1844 it was 88 million, and in 1914 it had risen to 963 million pounds.

Export of sheep's wool rose from 3.7 thousand pounds in 1833 to 2.7 million in 1844; linseed from 2,100 bushels in 1833 to 237,000 bushels in 1844.

There were similar rises in jute and other raw materials. The rise in the export of food grain was equally steep. In 1849 it was valued at £858,000; in 1858 it rose to £3.8 million; in 1877 it was £7.9 million; in 1901 it had grown to £9.3 million; and by 1914 it bad reached the sum of £19.3 million.

India thus became an agricultural colony of British capitalism.



And people wonder why I call the British empire evil :rolleyes:

I spit on the empire and all its lovers.

Excerpts from The great holocaust of Bengal by Anil Chawla


History is written by those who win a war and not by the losers. No wonder, the history of Second World War is written by British and American authors. We are told that the war was necessary to eliminate the evil of Nazism and Hitler from the earth.

The last chapter in the history of Second World War was written in early October 1945 at the famous Nuremberg trial, when the four prosecuting nations -- the United States, Great Britain, France and Russia -- issued an indictment against 24 men and six organizations. The individual defendants were charged with the systematic murder of millions of people.

Sixty years after the end of the war, time has come to reopen the case and institute a fresh Nuremberg trial - this time against one of the prosecuting nations -- Great Britain -- for systematic and intentional murder of millions of people. This genocide was not confined to the Second World War. In fact, only its last episode was played out during the war. The ghastly genocide, which used hunger and starvation as tools, lasted for about eighteen decades and was carried out in Bengal, India (at present Bengal is partly in India and partly in Bangladesh) by the British colonial masters claiming about thirty million victims.

It started in 1770 with a big bang, when approximately one third of the total population of Bengal died because of a drought. About 10 million people died! East India Company, which had occupied the country five years earlier, did not even once attempt to introduce any measures of aid worth mentioning. British officers in India were happily reporting to their bosses in London about having maximized their profit through trading and export of food. (Incidentally, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, the prophet of Indian nationalism, wrote his celebrated novel "Anandamath" with the battle cry 'Bandemataram' in the context of the agony evoked by the ravages of the famine of 1770.)

It must be mentioned here that Bengal is a land of rivers and most fertile land of Ganges delta. Bengal was a granary of India till British came in. Every village had, and still has, a pond, which has fishes that can feed the village even when there is no rice. It needed British intervention to convert the lush green land of Bengal into famine-starved land.

Bengal had 30 or 40 famines (depending on how one defines famine) during 182 years of British rule in Bengal. There are no reliable accounts of the number of people who dies in these famines. We have only the figures put out by British colonialists. But even given the limited data availability, once can see the barbaric face of British colonialism in India.

The last big famine in Bengal occurred between 1942 and 1945. At least four million people died during these three years. Some scholars believe that the number of dead was much higher (remember that the figure of four million is based on British sources). Notwithstanding the controversy about the number of dead, it is widely accepted that the famine was man-made. Nobel laureate, Amartya Sen, has demonstrated quite convincingly that the famine deaths were caused by British policies and not by drastic slump in food production.

The following facts deserve attention:

a) In May 1942, Burma fell to Japanese. British were afraid that Japanese aided by Indian National Army (led by Subhash Chandra Bose) would invade India from the east. Bose's slogan - Dilli Chalo (Let us go to Delhi) - had struck fear in the hearts of British. The British followed a policy of 'scorched earth'. On one hand, this was to ensure denial of food to invading armies, in case the Japanese decided to march across Bengal. On the other hand, the British wanted to break the will and ability of people of Bengal to rise in rebellion in support of the invaders. It could not be a coincidence that British executed a military police action in October 1942, during which 193 camps and buildings of the Congress Party were destroyed and countless people arrested. Between August 1942 and February 1943, 43 persons were shot by the British occupation police. Additionally, British troops were involved in an unknown number of rapes and lootings of food supplies, among other things.

b) Bengal was overcrowded with refugees as well as with retreating soldiers from various British colonies which were temporarily occupied by the Japanese. In March 1942 alone, around 2,000 to 3,000 British soldiers and civilians arrived every day in Calcutta and Chittagong, and in the month of May, a total of 300,000 were counted. As a result of the massive food purchases by the government, food prices in the countryside skyrocketed.

c) Expecting a Japanese landing in the Gulf of Bengal, the British authorities enacted the so-called "Boat-Denial Scheme" leading to confiscation of all boats and ships in the Gulf of Bengal which could carry more than 10 persons. This resulted in not less than 66,500 confiscated boats. Consequently, the inland navigation system collapsed completely. Fishing became practically impossible, and many rice and jute farmers could not ship their goods anymore. Subsequently the economy collapsed completely, especially in the lower Ganges-Delta.

d) The confiscations of land in connection with military fortifications and constructions (airplane landing places, military and refugee camps) led to the expulsion of about 150,000 to 180,000 people from their land, turning them practically into homeless persons.

e) Food deliveries from other parts of the country to Bengal were refused by the government in order to make food artificially scarce. This was an especially cruel policy introduced in 1942 under the title "Rice Denial Scheme." The purpose of it was, as mentioned earlier, to deny an efficient food supply to the Japanese after a possible invasion. Simultaneously, the government authorized free merchants to purchase rice at any price and to sell it to the government for delivery into governmental food storage. So, on one hand government was buying every grain of rice that was around and on the other hand, it was blocking grain from coming into Bengal from other regions of the country.

f) The blank check of the government (for food purchases) triggered price inflation. As a result, some merchants did not deliver food to the government but hoarded it, hoping for higher profit margins when selling it later. This led to further food shortages on the market and to further price increases.

g) In addition to this inflationary thrust, massive military activities in Bengal were basically financed by overtime of money printing presses. Oversupply of paper money by Government led to a general inflation, which hit the impoverished population in the countryside especially hard.

h) Even though British law in India provided that emergency laws were to be applied in case of famines, the famine in Bengal was never officially recognized as such; an emergency was not declared, and therefore no drastic counter measures were taken for its amelioration. It was not until October of 1943 that the British government took notice of the emergency situation, but it still refused to introduce any supportive measures that would have been necessary.

i) Even though India imported about 1.8 million tons of cereals before the war, Britain made sure that India had an export surplus of rice at record levels in the tax year 1942/43.

j) The bad situation in Bengal was discussed in the British Parliament during a meeting at which only 10% of all members participated. Repeated requests for food imports to India (400 Million people) led to the delivery of approximately half a million tons of cereal in the years 1943 and 1944. In contrast to this was the net import to Great Britain (50 Million people) of 10 million tons in the second half of the year 1943 alone. Churchill repeatedly denied all food exports to India, in spite of the fact that about 2.4 million Indians served in British units during the Second World War.

Given a choice, I would rather die in a gas chamber than die of starvation begging on the streets. Viewed from this perspective, Hitler appears humane and even angelic, while Churchill puts even the devil to shame. The thirty million men, women and children who died slow, painful deaths in the villages of Bengal were not enemies of the British Empire. They had done nothing to deserve the cruel fate. Howsoever much one might disagree with Hitler, at least in his own warped logic, he had a reason to hate Jews. British Government and Churchill did not even have such a fig leaf of distorted logic to justify their cruel barbaric act.

Amartya Sen has used the Bengal famine to justify democracy and run down dictatorships. The fact is that Churchill was democratically elected by British people. After independence, from 1947 till date, East Bengal (presently known as Bangladesh) has been ruled by dictators for many years. Yet, during the past five and a half decades, the number of starvation deaths in East Bengal (or West Bengal) is not even one per cent of the number of people that died of starvation during the half-century before independence. The issue, obviously, is not dictatorship versus democracy.

We are also told that the rulers of Bengal, before the British arrived, were self-centered despots, who did not care about their people's well being and were spoilt by luxury. British take pride in the fact that they brought 'good governance' and 'rule of law' to India, starting from Bengal and spreading to the rest of the country. In spite of all the alleged misrule that the Indian rulers of pre-British era indulged in, there is absolutely no historical account of any major famine in Bengal prior to the arrival of British in Bengal.

Academicians have a tendency to miss the holistic reality when they go hammer and tongs over fine details. Most academic debates about Bengal Famine have missed the most essential aspect - criminal act of the British Government. There is a tendency to study the Bengal famine in terms of parameters, which were internal to Bengal, like food supply, disease history of rice, inflation economics, democracy as a system of governance, weather analysis and many such wonderful terms. All such studies treat the famine as if it was a product of some systemic internal parameters peculiar to Bengal; and all that is needed is to study the parameters with a view to ensure that the same do not recur. This is a wrong premise.

Bengal was a victim of a criminal act perpetrated for more than one and three quarters of a century. British establishment indulged in brutal genocide in Bengal, at times to further their own interests and at other times out of sheer negligence of their duties. In either case, the British Government stands guilty of the worst crime in recent human history.

The Holocaust in Germany was a minor event compared to what the British did to a people, who trusted them and were loyal to them. Nazis have been accused and convicted of the Holocaust in Germany. Even today, there are attempts to hunt down ex-Nazis and bring them to justice. A few weeks ago, a court awarded compensation to a Holocaust victim.

Is it not time that the descendants of the victims of The Great Holocaust of Bengal sought compensation from the present Government of the United Kingdom? Is it possible to initiate a criminal case against Winston Churchill and all those who were in power during 1942-45 (or during 1765-1947) in British Government? Is that too much to ask for?

Do you believe that the systematic murder of six million white-skinned Jews was a crime worthy of punishment, while the killing of thirty million black-skinned people of Bengal does not even deserve a footnote in history?

The least that people of India and Bangladesh can do is to construct a memorial in the memory of millions who died at the hand of a cruel barbaric monster. Let us at least shed a tear for them! Let us at least rewrite the history!

More on the Bengal famines and "Austenizng" of British atrocities in India by Dr. Gideon Polya

http://www.sulekha.com/blogs/blogdisplay.aspx?cid=748

A fundamental feature of the scientific method involves gathering data, generating testable and potentially falsifiable hypotheses to explain the data, and experimentation to test such hypotheses. Reiteration of this process yields models that are progressively better approximations to reality and indeed this scientific method has been responsible for the extraordinary scientific and technological advance of humanity in the last few millennia. It should be obvious that ignoring or rubbing out the data simply short-circuits the whole process and prevents rational prediction. This ethical commitment to and respect for the basic data should not be required only of scientists -- it is a requisite for all seekers after truth, including historians, sociologists and economists.

Respect for the data is particularly critical for historians because in general they cannot perform experiments and their data are simply the records of past events. While we are well aware of the selectivity of historians and of the adage "history is written by the victors," we also recognize the truism that "history ignored yields history repeated." Thus with the world already experiencing appalling discrepancies between geopolitically available food and population demand, the deletion of massive man-made famines of British India from history and from general public perception is not merely unethical -- such white-washing also represents a major threat to humanity. Deletion of major man-made catastrophes from history increases the probability that the same underlying, but unaddressed, causes will yield repetition of such disasters.

I have recently published a book -- "Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial Rapacity, Holocaust Denial and the Crisis in Biological Sustainability" -- that deals with the two century holocaust of man-made famine in British India and its effective deletion from history. It deals with this "forgotten holocaust" that commenced with the Bengal Famine of 1769-1770 (10 million victims) and concluded with the World War II man-made Bengal Famine (4 million victims) and took tens of millions of lives in between. The lying by omission of two centuries of English-speaking historians continues today in the supposedly "open societies" of the global Anglo culture. This sustained, continuing lying by omission in the sophisticated but cowardly and selectively unobservant culture of the Anglo world has ensured that very few educated people (including Indians) are aware of these massive past realities. In contrast, nearly all are aware of the substantially fictional "Black Hole of Calcutta" of 1756 that demonized Indians and indeed became part of the English language.

Such deletion of unpleasant realities from history is described in my book as "Austenizing" after Jane Austen, whose elegant novels were utterly devoid of the ugly social realities of her time. While Jane Austen’s family and others related to it were intimately involved in the rape of India, it was perfectly legitimate for Jane Austen, the artist, to remove social horrors from her exquisite literary canvas. However, the continuing Austenizing of British Indian history is a holocaust-denying outrage that ultimately threatens humanity by ignoring the massive man-made famine disasters of the British Raj and hence the underlying causes of racism, greed and moral unresponsiveness.

Repetition of immense crimes against humanity such as the World War II Holocaust is made much less likely when the responsible society acknowledges the crime, apologizes, makes amends and accepts the injunction: "Never again." However, when it comes to the horrendous succession of massive, man-made famines in British India, no apology nor amends have been made and it is indeed generally accepted that such horrors will be repeated on an unimaginably greater scale in the coming century. While British prime minister Tony Blair has apologized for the mid-19th century Irish famine that killed over a million people, he has not even commented on the mid-20th century man-made famine in British-ruled Bengal that took four million lives. (He is aware of this, having acknowledged receipt of a copy of my book).

In the World War II Bengal Famine, when the price of rice rose above the ability of the landless rural poor to pay and in the absence of a humane colonial government, millions simply starved to death or died of starvation-related causes. While there was plenty of food potentially available, the price of rice rose as a result of a number of factors including the following: cessation of imports from Japanese-occupied Burma; a massive war-time decline in requisite grain imports into India; a deliberate strategic slashing of Indian Ocean shipping by Churchill; British seizure of rice stocks in certain sensitive areas of Bengal; the seizure and destruction of boats critically required for food acquisition and distribution; the failure to actually declare a famine under the colonial Famine Code and the "divide and rule" policy of giving the various Indian provinces control over their own food reserves. "Market forces" determined that industrial Calcutta, cashed up as a result of the wartime boom, was able to pay for rice and sucked food out of a starving, food-producing countryside.

The 1943-1944 Bengal Famine was accompanied by a vast multitude of starvation, near-death and terminal horrors. The world is rightly indignant about the large-scale, wartime "comfort women" abuses of the Japanese Army. However, it is not aware of the civilian and military sexual abuse of starving Bengali women and girls that was conducted on such a massive scale that it is reflected in demographic survival statistics. Ultimately millions suffered and died because their colonial British rulers did not care for them. Their ultimate ruler, wartime British prime minister Winston Churchill, had a confessed hatred for Indians, confiding to the Secretary of State for India in 1942 that "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." Not surprisingly, the Bengal Famine, that was responsible for 90% of total World War II British Empire military and civilian casualties, is not mentioned in Churchill’s 6-volume "History of the Second World War." Churchill astonishingly asserts in his book: "No great portion of the world’s population was so effectively protected from the horrors and perils of the World War as were the people of Hindustan. They were carried through the struggle on the shoulders of our small Island."

It was in the following way that my book was inspired, in part, by Jane Austen's writings. My father was a refugee to Australia from Nazi Europe in 1939 and I am deeply conscious of the Holocaust that wiped our extensive and gifted family from the face of Europe. I always had a deep interest in history and one can readily imagine my consternation on learning of the Bengal famine of 1943-1944 and the massive loss of life involved through the film Distant Thunder made by the pre-eminent filmmaker Satyajit Ray. My consternation turned to indignation when I turned to my large personal library to find that an event of a similar magnitude to the Jewish Holocaust and occurring at the same time was comprehensively absent, except for a brief, 3-word mention in a German historical encyclopaedia. Recourse to a major university library quickly established the reality of this "forgotten holocaust" but also confirmed the outrageous, near-comprehensive deletion from British history of this man-made disaster, and indeed two centuries of such crimes against humanity in British India.

My wife, Zareena, is a Fiji Indian whose grandparents went to Fiji from Bengal and Bihar as indentured labourers for the British. She introduced me to Jane Austen’s work Northanger Abbey and a key passage finally precipitated my literary and historical journey. Jane Austen was aware of the prolonged public trial of Warren Hastings, an important family connection, and the allegations against him of immense crimes against humanity in India. In Northanger Abbey, the heroine Catherine Morland, spooked by the gloomy abbey, surmises that Henry Tilney’s father may have done away with Henry’s mother. Henry reproves her thus:

"If I understand you rightly, you have formed a surmise of such horror as I have hardly words to. Dear Miss Morland, consider the dreadful nature of the suspicions you have entertained. What have you been judging from? Remember the country and the age in which we live. Remember that we are English, that we are Christians. Consult your own understanding, your own sense of the probable, your own observation of what is passing around you. Does our education prepare us for such atrocities? Do our laws connive at them? Could they be perpetrated without being known, in a country like this, where social and literary intercourse is on such a footing, where every man is surrounded by a neighbourhood of voluntary spies, and where roads and newspapers lay everything open? Dearest Miss Morland, what ideas have you been admitting?"

The world currently has a population of about six billion, of whom about two billion suffer food scarcity and nearly one billion suffer chronic malnourishment. About twenty million die prematurely each year from starvation-related causes. Conservative, status quo estimates would predict thirty million such deaths per year by 2050. If by 2050 the Third World returns from the current annual mortality of about 10 per 1000 to the 35 per 1000 obtaining in British India in 1947, then we will see an "excess mortality" of a staggering 200 million people per year. This is nevertheless avoidable provided there is a global moral responsiveness in our economically globalized world of a kind absent in relation to both the searingly remembered Jewish Holocaust and the now "forgotten" Bengal Famine of 50 years ago. That responsiveness is only possible if past, present and likely future man-made famine holocausts are unavoidably, remorselessly and continually presented to global public perception.

World over-population is the basis of the current mounting crisis in global sustainability and must be urgently addressed. Clearly greatly increased female literacy as well as Third World debt relief and enhanced economic security represent effective partial solutions. Humane solutions can and indeed must be found -- we cannot walk by on the other side. We must resurrect the "forgotten holocausts" of colonial India and resolve: "Never again."

I am sorry but your posts conveyed exactly that. These are your words

I don't see the inconsistency. My point is and always has been that the British Empire is only the most obvious example of the natural behaviour of the human race.


like I said " oh if I had not raped and killed you, somebody else might have, so why you blaming me"...
You took that out of context and you know you did. That came immediately after a list of other examples of abuses of one's fellow man. I stated that this was to show that such behaviour was such an integral part of human behaviour throughout history as to make comments like 'British empire = despicable evil' inaccurate and redundant, especially in a thread devoted to showing that Britain is the cause of all the world's problems. Indeed this was more or less immediatley followed by an asseveration that this did NOT excuse the behaviour. I will repeat again for the hard of thinking. I DO NOT DISAGREE THAT WHAT THE BRITISH DID IN INDIA WAS WRONG.

Yes, there were willing Indians. The divide and rule policy was a good tool. Setting up one group against the other worked very nicely.

Yes divide and rule works. It works because other people, not just the British, are willing to put their own desires above those of other people to whatever result.

Yes, I would have behaved differently. Even many Britishers behaved differently. It is not arrogance. It is my morality.
How did you just turn an attempt to gauge your concepts of good and evil through the specific example of Nazi Germany, into a hypothetical about British rule in India? Without even explaining why. At least pretend to read my posts before you roll out the smilies and smug language.


It is stupid of you to think I am blaming all the British people of today. I have made it clear that I don't. But I do blame the British people of imperial times who supported the empire.
and the Indian ones who were party to it?


What is the problem here? Asking for accountability? You think we would just pretend that we will forget all the injustices done to us and sing kumbaya?

None of the above. I merely want you to get down off your high horse before you use phrases like 'despicable evil' which by its nature implies that you are somehow superior. As I've tried to point out, the actions of the British Empire are merely the most prominent manifestation of this behaviour which has defined mankind throughout history. You are in effect stating that you are better than everyone else. You add that to the fact that you said that in a thread whose stated aim was to show Britain literally as the source of all the world's problems and you can see why I might want to challenge your attitude. Now if India were a country that had never exploited anyone, invaded anyone, engaged in empire building and so on then I could understand your holier than thou attitude, but otherwise its just a brand of self deception.

India is an example.
No. India has always been in favour of exploitation and opression of its fellow man. Only in the 1940s did you put an end, officially at any rate, to the caste system which by its nature is designed to oppress racially or culturally inferior groups in Indian society.

I merely want you to get down off your high horse before you use phrases like 'despicable evil' which by its nature implies that you are somehow superior.

I don't recall me or my ancestors colonising and looting and killing millions of Britishers.

As such, since the Britishers did that to my country, I will call the empire as despicable evil and hold it in utmost contempt.

As I've tried to point out, the actions of the British Empire are merely the most prominent manifestation of this behaviour which has defined mankind throughout history.

European history (with Arab colonisation of North Africa thrown in).

Not in the history of the subcontinent, which has always been home to huge populations, this kind of genocidal behaviour has happened.

Show me which countries did the Guptas, the Mauryas, the Kushans (all were dynasties ruling most of India and had reigns of centuries) invade and colonise and loot and rape the colonised land.

Now if India were a country that had never exploited anyone, invaded anyone, engaged in empire building and so on then I could understand your holier than thou attitude, but otherwise its just a brand of self deception.


Again, point me to the genocides committed by Indian rulers of yore.

No. India has always been in favour of exploitation and opression of its fellow man. Only in the 1940s did you put an end, officially at any rate, to the caste system which by its nature is designed to oppress racially or culturally inferior groups in Indian society.

Lol. Caste discriminations (despicable as they are) do not even come close to being mentioned in the same breath of the atrocities done by the British empire.

The empire killed millions and impoverished millions and looted millions.

The empire was directed by the policies of people who made conscious choices directing those policies.

The caste system is a social setup, not directed by any poliy maker vested with such powers.

You are surely deluded if you are doing an equal-equal with these two issues.

I don't recall me or my ancestors colonising and looting and killing millions of Britishers.

As such, since the Britishers did that to my country, I will call the empire as despicable evil and hold it in utmost contempt.



European history (with Arab colonisation of North Africa thrown in).

Not in the history of the subcontinent, which has always been home to huge populations, this kind of genocidal behaviour has happened.

Show me which countries did the Guptas, the Mauryas, the Kushans (all were dynasties ruling most of India and had reigns of centuries) invade and colonise and loot and rape the colonised land.



Again, point me to the genocides committed by Indian rulers of yore.



Lol. Caste discriminations (despicable as they are) do not even come close to being mentioned in the same breath of the atrocities done by the British empire.

The empire killed millions and impoverished millions and looted millions.

The empire was directed by the policies of people who made conscious choices directing those policies.

The caste system is a social setup, not directed by any poliy maker vested with such powers.

You are surely deluded if you are doing an equal-equal with these two issues.

Bah. The Empire made India. India is a fiction created by the british. And at worst, you at least learned the same morality by which you judge them from them.

When India cracks down on throwing acid in peoples faces, then you can talk.

Long post alert

Excerpts from the book, The people of India.



And people wonder why I call the British empire evil :rolleyes:

I spit on the empire and all its lovers.

See, you wouldnt even be able to write that if it were not for Britain
:D

A billion Indians hold the British empire as evil. We simply don't care whether you think it is inappropriate or not.

Well, the Raj may have been arrogant, but I don't beleive I have ever heard anyone claim to be able to speak on behalf of a billion people before. You and I both know that your hyperbole is innaccurate. I know quite a few Indians who do not consider the Imperial episaode as evil.

Lol. Caste discriminations (despicable as they are) do not even come close to being mentioned in the same breath of the atrocities done by the British empire.

Your complacency is arrogance. Or is evil only a matter of scale in your book.

Oh, but don't worry. Like how the Aryan ploy blew up in their face in the form of Hitler, the partition is also blowing up in the form of the BackPaki's on 7/7.

Your gloating is vile. As is your terminology.

Yes, I would have behaved differently. Even many Britishers behaved differently. It is not arrogance. It is my morality.

Bully for you. Perhaps if you weren't so pleased at the second world war and terrorist attacks in London I might even believe you.

Britain may have caused some of the problems of the world, but nowhere near all, or even more. In fact, you can be thankful the British shaped the world - they have done bad, but they also did an incredible amount of good. Who else would have shaped the world better? I mean, if you look at all the world's empires, it's probably the British that was the most enlightened.

No doubt the Irish will claim they would have done perfectly if only the evil British opressors hadn't attacked an innocent Ireland. What they forget is Ireland was attacking England, Wales and Scotland far before the inverse was true - if you provoke other countries, what do you expect? Them to lie back and take it? If it was Ireland that had succeeded and conquered Britain, you can bet there'd be more to whine about than them failing to devote their entire economy to solving a famine problem. In fact, many Irish were only jealous that they didn't have the same power as Britain. There was an Irish saying during the 19th century "Why did God make Ireland so small? Because if he'd made it any bigger it would have conquered the whole world!" Ireland's victim status is just laughable - you don't see me whining about the Scottish who raped and pillaged my ancestors in the north of England do you? No because THE PAST IS THE PAST, and if you didn't even experience any of this "opression" then you have no right to bitch.

If you want to describe people as evil, look in your own backyard before accusing others - and the IRA are one of the most morally bankrupt and racist groups in the world.

Ireland's victim status is just laughable - you don't see me whining about the Scottish who raped and pillaged my ancestors in the north of England do you?


Can I just apologise to you and the rest of the North of England for the actions of the reivers? I still feel ashamed that we were so undeveloped at the time that we failed to realise just how the entire future of both our great countries would be affected by the actions of a culture that really should have recognised how unacceptable cattle theft and sheep rape would have become in the future. Perhaps if we had known, we wouldn't have joined forces and commited unspeakable actions that we should continue to grovel for decades later.

Ach well. I suppose that since we caused the second world war at least that gives the Nazi apologists a get out clause. :p

Can I just apologise to you and the rest of the North of England for the actions of the reivers? I still feel ashamed that we were so undeveloped at the time that we failed to realise just how the entire future of both our great countries would be affected by the actions of a culture that really should have recognised how unacceptable cattle theft and sheep rape would have become in the future. Perhaps if we had known, we wouldn't have joined forces and commited unspeakable actions that we should continue to grovel for decades later.

Ach well. I suppose that since we caused the second world war at least that gives the Nazi apologists a get out clause. :p

Ah, but you see, every inhabitant of the British Isles is born with what they call 'Evilitis', an affliction unique to this country which leads to manic laughing, opressing completely innocent countries which have never done wrong entirely unprovoked and the ability to easily get roles as evil characters in Hollywood movies. Therefore, your ancestors cannot be blamed - the Scots and English were destined to be evil to one another until they realised that they could be even MORE evil to other even more innocent countries if they joined forces. Muahahaha!

Ah, if only Britain hadn't become so powerful. How perfect the world would be. Did you know that Britain invented torture, rape and even formulated the idea of warfare? We may be the most inventive nation in the world, but can only invent evil things.

Ah, but you see, every inhabitant of the British Isles is born with what they call 'Evilitis', an affliction unique to this country which leads to manic laughing, opressing completely innocent countries which have never done wrong entirely unprovoked and the ability to easily get roles as evil characters in Hollywood movies. Therefore, your ancestors cannot be blamed - the Scots and English were destined to be evil to one another until they realised that they could be even MORE evil to other even more innocent countries if they joined forces. Muahahaha!

Ah, if only Britain hadn't become so powerful. How perfect the world would be. Did you know that Britain invented torture, rape and even formulated the idea of warfare? We may be the most inventive nation in the world, but can only invent evil things.

I'm so ashamed. I need diversion. Shall we go and conquer an innocent country and carry out some ruthless plunder? :fluffle:

Ah, if only Britain hadn't become so powerful. How perfect the world would be. Did you know that Britain invented torture, rape and even formulated the idea of warfare? We may be the most inventive nation in the world, but can only invent evil things.


LOL!

The Spanish Inqusition was really run by the Brits you know, i'll not get onto all the evil Popes there have been with their own variant of the inquisition but since they all succeeded the one and only English pope then you have to look no further than that. All religious wars and all the problems caused by Britain are all Adrian IV's fault. If he hadn't have been pope then everyone would be in a state of tranquility now. Oh and yes it was the Britons that taught the Roman Empire all their stuff, crucifixion etc.

So it was Britain's fault for Jesus being crucified too.


Nasty people those Brits, i say exterminate the lot of them.

PS can i apply for US citizenship before the exterminations start?

I'm so ashamed. I need diversion. Shall we go and conquer an innocent country and carry out some ruthless plunder? :fluffle:

Need you even ask? I'm British, of course!

I say we get Denmark. It's far too peaceful and unopressed at the moment. It's almost as if they are mocking us.

Seriously, what the fuck is with all you apologetics?!

"in a time when others killed eachother, we decided to kill everyone. We're not responsible for anything we did, because, through sheer force of bad evil pink unicorn will, we were forced to do what everyone else did, only 10 times over"

I mean what the FUCK?! Are you all insane?! Most of you weren't even alive during most of what's been brought up. What are you trying to defend?

Seriously, what the fuck is with all you apologetics?!

"in a time when others killed eachother, we decided to kill everyone. We're not responsible for anything we did, because, through sheer force of bad evil pink unicorn will, we were forced to do what everyone else did, only 10 times over"

I mean what the FUCK?! Are you all insane?! Most of you weren't even alive during most of what's been brought up. What are you trying to defend?

Absolutely nothing. Just trying to get a sense of perspective on all this. It appears from some of the posters that they genuinely believe that "most of the worlds problems" result from the British Empire. You won't find any Imperial apologists here, so far as I can see. You would have to take on Holocaust denial level historical revision to deal with that.

I think the point that might be worth recognising is that it also did bring some good. But fire away friend if it makes you feel good. I certainly don't take it personally and I don't feel guilty about it.

Seriously, what the fuck is with all you apologetics?!

"in a time when others killed eachother, we decided to kill everyone. We're not responsible for anything we did, because, through sheer force of bad evil pink unicorn will, we were forced to do what everyone else did, only 10 times over"

I mean what the FUCK?! Are you all insane?! Most of you weren't even alive during most of what's been brought up. What are you trying to defend?

When people look back on us in the future, they may all regard us as backward and evil - perhaps for not giving half as much money to charity as they do in the future, or for not helping people we see on the street in need of help. Does that mean we are all evil now?

I'm not defending the empire, but to blame all of the worlds problems on British Imperialism is pretty stupid when all countries with power at the time behaved in the same way or worse.

I mean, the very fact Ghandi was able to protest and gain Indian Independence through peaceful means says something, don't you think? Most superpowers of the time would have just exectuted him as soon as he began causing a trouble .

When people look back on us in the future, they may all regard us as backward and evil - perhaps for not giving half as much money to charity as they do in the futureThat's an absurd statement. Do you think you're capable of making more of an effort to help your fellow man next year than you are now?, or for not helping people we see on the street in need of help. You could just help out if you weren't an arse.Does that mean we are all evil now?That should be fairly obvious.

Do you think people tomorrow or yestoday were capable of being more responsible than they are today?! What kind of lunatic defence for being a twit is that?!

Yea, sorry I'll stop posting more today. You fuckers make me sick.

That's an absurd statement. Do you think you're capable of making more of an effort to help your fellow man next year than you are now?You could just help out if you weren't an arse.That should be fairly obvious.

Do you think people tomorrow or yestoday were capable of being more responsible than they are today?! What kind of lunatic defence for being a twit is that?!

Yea, sorry I'll stop posting more today. You fuckers make me sick.

Actually, yes. Do you or do you not think that the world has advanced since the British Empire? If your answer is yes, then Laenis is right- behaviour and civilisation have improved, and thus people have the ability to change for the better. If your answer is no, then human nature, not the British Empire is responsible for the bad things that happen. To be simplistic.

You make me feel kinda nauseous too, son.

Hmm, I admit my historical knowledge is pretty poor, but here goes:

* Northern Ireland

Of course, the Amercan government who supplied the terrorists with arms were not involved at all in the deaths caused in the UK due to Northern Irish terrorism.

* Palenstine

I think America has been interferring with Israeli politics for a while now...

* Iraq

America and Iraq.... Hmmm... Where to begin? I heard Rob Newman say at a gig the other night that Teddy Roosevelt supplied $1m and Churchill $0.5m in 1950 somthing to sprind an Iraqi terrorist out of jail (I forget his name), start a coop and replace the existing democracy with a dictatorship. Amazing how oil prices can effect America's plans for other countries' political setups.

* Africa

What about France, Belgium, Holland, etc., etc.? Plus, the slave trade took people to America did it not?

* America

You have a strongly differentiated enough culture over there and enough world influence to own up to your own mistakes. If we're talking about the way Native Americans were treated, what about Spain, France, Holland, Portugal, etc., etc.?

As mentioned by I V Stalin:
* India

Stalin, yes. He was a good guy.... Asides from that though, I don't know much about colonialism in India, but was it really any worse than what everyone else was doing to each other in the rest of the world?

Not wishing to be glib, (but as an avid Cricket fan) at least we gave India their national sport. They have produced some truly great Cricketers.

Sorry, this is a poorly researched reply. It's still early in the morning. Perhaps someone more historically inclined can fill in the blanks! I'm just trying to say that England is as much to blame for any exploitation as any other European power at the time when Europe was "discovering" the rest of the world. Also that America appears to be much more sinister in it's intentions than just being simply "run by a moron".

Perhaps we should have less Hollywood films with English bad guys, then you wouldn't all be so wary of the English. Haha! That's right, let your guard down....

Hmm, I admit my historical knowledge is pretty poor, but here goes:

* Northern Ireland

Of course, the Amercan government who supplied the terrorists with arms were not involved at all in the deaths caused in the UK due to Northern Irish terrorism.


I've often wondered this. George W Shrub stated that countries that support terrorism must be dealt with.

Well the USA has been supporting the IRA terrorist movement since way back. So if it was legitimate for the US to bomb Afghanistan and Iraq for promoting and supporting terrorism, does this mean it's equally as legit for the UK to declare war on the US should it wish? Would it not be the UK's duty to help fight terrorism?


You can hate the British all you want my friend but Britain will still be there in one form or another, as long as anyone in the world is speaking English, Britain will be remembered.

I agree with Laenis and Fenland Friends. We should invade a country.

Sylvestia, you're right too. Countries who promote terrorism must be dealt with.

Can anyone see where I'm going here? There's around 250 years of back-taxes we need to reclaim from someone out there.....

;)

Don't know if anyone mentioned this, but the British empire covered about half the world at one time, so you would expect about half of todays problems to be in previously british-pwned countries. Maybe alot of those problems were started because of us British, but that was a long time ago.

These days I have to say it's America causing most of the problems. They are the equivelent of the British Empire. I think it's fair to say they control half the world. (We have free market economies in over half the world, and hey, which country has all the big powerful corporations?). I don't know if George Bush & co. invaded Iraq for that reason, but I'm sure it will work out well for America's corporations...

Well if you'd want to make the modern British government responsible for anything, you'd fail.

The Empire...hmm, the question is whether we wouldn't have exactly the same (or at least very similar) problems if it hadn't existed.

I'm often one of the first to point out that the British sheet is not exactly clean either (from imperial times all the way to WWII), but that doesn't mean I'd take to hyperboles and make the Brits responsible for things - even if their government did oppress India, bombed Germany and horribly exploited Africa, today's Brits have little to do with it.

I don't want to be made responsible for the crimes committed by Germans over the years, and so I wouldn't want to wish the same on others.

I agree with Laenis and Fenland Friends. We should invade a country.

Sylvestia, you're right too. Countries who promote terrorism must be dealt with.

Can anyone see where I'm going here? There's around 250 years of back-taxes we need to reclaim from someone out there.....

;)

Superb. :D Can I have first shout at New England? I hear it's lovely this time of year.

the british goverment did all it could to help palistine.

but the jews wanted a country after world war 2 and decided to TAKE isreal for themselves.

even tho they were offered uganda they used terroist actions to force the british gov to withdraw troops from the area as the british public did not want soldiers being killed now that the war was over.

it was this public pressure that led to the withdraw of troops within the region and with no british troops to protect the palistinians the jews took the piss and seized any land they could.

britain is one of the few countries not afraid to get stuck in.
eg. siera leone
also british democracy is one of the best in the world, not that i agree with democracy (since when did joe average know how to run a country) but it runs like clockwork.

also look how well the former colenies are doing?
wihout britain there would be no canada, no australia, new zealand, or about 30 other countries that had civilisation intorduced to them through colinisation.

look how well India is doing, mostly due to its close links with britain and the work ethic of the poeple.

the usa is the bad boy of this world.
lets not forget that 5% of the worlds population is producing over 25% of the worlds waste. this is far more damaging and deadly than any foreghn policy bar war.
the USA is the fool of this world. the big brutish bully who has less sence than the hill billy president leading them.
just think how bad it would be if bush had no tony telling him to be a bit less of a twat?

so before you question the great nation of great britain ask yourself this.
am i french?
cos if your not you really have no excuse to hate on britain...
unless your german, but then the feelings mutual.

no country acts selflessly in its foreighn policy

economics is simply war through other means.

you would do well to remember these little jems of knoledge.

the Bread Sultan hath spoken, cower in fear those that disagree.

Superb. :D Can I have first shout at New England? I hear it's lovely this time of year.

LOL. It's all yours mate.

I call Vice President! (President is a dangerous job: those pretzals are sharp!)

the Bread Sultan hath spoken, cower in fear those that disagree.
*Making a point of not cowering despite being in disagreement*

*Making a point of not cowering despite being in disagreement*

Good on you! Although I thought he did very well apart from the last two lines and the part about the French and Germans.

Good on you! Although I thought he did very well apart from the last two lines and the part about the French and Germans.

economics is WAR

when a foreghn company comes into a country it is sapping the money away from the host country and government and transferring them to their own countries gov.
war costs money...therefore the one with the biggest pot of money can wage the biggest war.
economics is the struggle to have the most.
infact if your pot of money is significantly bigger you dont even need to go to war to get your way.

as for the french german thing.
we love to hate the french. and the french love to hate the british...

as for the germans, im not forgetting world war 2. besides a bit of friendly competition between nations is fine.
yea sure i say that i hate germans and that they are all straight as a ruler.
but thats just a generalisation.
just like saying they all have armpits that r hairy.
i went out with a german and she didnt have them...

it was all in jest..

and you better start cowering if u know whats good for you.

the bread sultan

economics is the struggle to have the most.
You know, I study economics at University, and your version of it (called Mercantilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism)) has been proven wrong for...well...about 200 years?

yea sure i say that i hate germans and that they are all straight as a ruler.
but thats just a generalisation.
Sure is...

just like saying they all have armpits that r hairy.
I have hairy armpits! :eek:

and you better start cowering if u know whats good for you.
Make me. :D

economics is WAR

I agreed with you on this! I also think that war is economics.

we love to hate the french. and the french love to hate the british...
..
it was all in jest..

:D Point taken, although I am gettings much more Europhile the more I travel there and the older I get. I know what you mean about the French blockading ports and banning beef, etc.. They do have a reputation for being difficult.

Although I think the thread was edging towards forgiving and forgeting old wounds and wars. As Garth says in "Wayne's World": "Live in the now!"

and you better start cowering if u know whats good for you.

Okay, I suppose I am terrified of everyone who uses the Internet. ;)

Well if you'd want to make the modern British government responsible for anything, you'd fail.

Well.... yeah. I thought this thread was about historical circumstances, no? Thr current crop of govts and citizenry doesn't really come into the equation. No on is shouldering blame on anyone alive today, nor on the vast majority of people who lived throughout the Empire's existence- it is the policy makers and the ideals that 'we can do anything- so STFU' attitude of the old Imperial guard that I am personally arguing against.[/QUOTE]

Hmm, I admit my historical knowledge is pretty poor, but here goes:

* Northern Ireland

Of course, the Amercan government who supplied the terrorists with arms were not involved at all in the deaths caused in the UK due to Northern Irish terrorism.

Go further back to the very existence of the Northern people themselves- the Plantations. This is root of the current problem in all effect. It was state policy of the then proto-Empire to colonise the land, to subjugate(sp?) the population by making them outnumbered in their own land. I'm not saying to them now, 'GO HOME', I'm merely pointing out where the origins of such problems to arise from.

No doubt the Irish will claim they would have done perfectly if only the evil British opressors hadn't attacked an innocent Ireland.
Well I guess we'll never know now. Its hard to say they would- but thats like saying "well, the Basques wouldn't have used their country to good enough use anyway, we were justified in taking it over"

What they forget is Ireland was attacking England, Wales and Scotland far before the inverse was true - if you provoke other countries, what do you expect? Them to lie back and take it?
Eh.... No. I don't know where you read your history mate, but I suggest you change it. The attacks on 'England' and Pictland occured at a time where England didn't even exist. 'Ireland' never attacked- Irish clans did. There was no national unity in the era you are referring to- it was not state policy to conquer 'England' because no state existed! The epoch you refer to is roughly between 300AD and 700AD.

In fact, many Irish were only jealous that they didn't have the same power as Britain.
Can you provide some links to this spurious claim? Jealous, I doubt it. Bitter? More likely. Ireland was supposed to be treated like an equal back then- a second England almost- after all we were the same rough blood were we not? Yet the hierarchy in the Empire went= Britain, Canada, India, Australia, NZ, African territories, Ireland. No blacks, no dogs, no Irish ring a bell?

There was an Irish saying during the 19th century "Why did God make Ireland so small? Because if he'd made it any bigger it would have conquered the whole world!"
Absolute shite. That sounds like a member of the Ascendancy to me.... of course if you know the history, you'll know what the Ascendancy was...


Ireland's victim status is just laughable
To you. Not to others, and it is that attitude that still persists today that makes things difficult between individuals of our respective peoples.

and if you didn't even experience any of this "opression" then you have no right to bitch.
Who's bitching? Surely you're not afraid of a little laundry being aired are you?
Can we use that same logic when the wars are being brought up? "You weren't there therefore you can't comment on it"? Niiice.

Thankfully, history allows us to see our mistakes, acknowledge them and move on. Don't get so ratty about recognising the fallacies of an institution.

Eh.... No. I don't know where you read your history mate, but I suggest you change it. The attacks on 'England' and Pictland occured at a time where England didn't even exist. 'Ireland' never attacked- Irish clans did. There was no national unity in the era you are referring to- it was not state policy to conquer 'England' because no state existed! The epoch you refer to is roughly between 300AD and 700AD.



Correct.

But 'America' did not exist as a nation until 1776 and yet i'm sure events that happened prior to that are remembered.

England didn't become a 'nation' until the 900s (as such, if even then, it's debatable), but people remembered things, and even in the 900-1000 era Vikings were still pillaging and looting from all angles including Dublin. The Viking raids were really a bad time to live through (historical sources such as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle) will tell you as much. They made a big impression on the population's mind, and frankly the idea of Vikings invading still does.

The fear of the Scots/Celts/Picts crossing the border and raiding in northern England was a constant worry from the Roman period until the 1500s, the Welsh Marches equally worrying, and Ireland itself was a worry. The English developed the idea that a pre-emptive strike was the best way to solve the problem. Which is the policy the US is taking now.

No, America has caused far more problems. Unfortunately Blair is Bushes pet poodle.

See, you wouldnt even be able to write that if it were not for Britain
:D

Lol.

So Britishers, don't complain when you lose all those call centre jobs to the Indians.:D

Lacadaemon, Fuck you.

Fenland Friends, Fuck you too. :)

Laenis,

I mean, the very fact Ghandi was able to protest and gain Indian Independence through peaceful means says something, don't you think? Most superpowers of the time would have just exectuted him as soon as he began causing a trouble .

Ever heard of the Andaman and Nicobar penitentiary where countless perished for opposing the British? The prison is still preserved and a visit there would help clear up many myths of this "benevolent colonial power" nonsense.

Gandhi was not taken as a serious threat at first. People laughed at his ideas. He was ridiculed as a half-naked fakir and as a nobody. By the time the Raj realised that Gandhi was a much more serious threat than Aurobindo, Savarkar and other such freedom fighters who favored any means (including armed revolt), Gandhi already had a huge following and killing him at that stage became an unviable proposition.

To others, here's another grand fuck up by the Imperial British empire.

The Durrand line which divides the Pushtun tribes of Pakistan and Afghanistan. The agreement was signed in 1895 between the Brits and the Afghan King that the provinces of NWFP and Parts of Balochistan (which are now with Pakistan) would revert back to Afghanistan after a hundred years (i.e. 1995). Much like the Honk Kong issue, only that in 1947 British withdrew happily leaving all parties to fight it out amongst themselves.

No Afghan govt recognises the border and no Afghan govt can give up its sovereign claim of those territories. No Pakistani govt can tolerate this claim on what they see as their sovereign territory. And no pushtun tribe recognises the line and travel freely across the border as they please.

Result is that Pakistan has to keep undermining Afghan nationalism to avoid claims of the territory. This is a significant factor behind their propping up of the Taliban against nationalists like Ahmad Shah Masood. Note the timing of the appearance of taliban and their seizure of power in ~ 1994.

Part of the reason why Pakistan can never give up their clandestine support for taliban and both the countries will always be at loggerheads.

Britain, in constructing and governing its empire, acted as all states ever have and all states ever will. Once states grow to a certain size, they begin to expand in order to protect their interests - there are no exceptions to this rule. To judge Britain alone for acting in the same way that all powers do is not only hypocritical but it is also ignoring the problem at the root of it all: the question of national power.

However, it remains a fact that the British Empire was and probably remains the most benevolent empire ever to have existed. Considering the track records of most empires, this is not great praise but the British empire generally treated its subject peoples better than most empires. Britain (unlike Germany or France) did not enforce conscription on its colonies until it was force to impose conscription on the mother land itself It also exported a great many of its more admirable traits to the colonies: transport infrastructure, communication infrastructure, the common law, industrial technology and government burecratic models being the foremost examples. Compared to most 20th century empires (the American one being the only exception), the British one was the most moderate towards its subjects.

A summary of apologism

1. You see, I only killed and raped and looted you less. Everyone were doing it. We also did it. Why are you blaming me? Look at the Nazi and be thankful we were not as worse as the nazis were.

2. Hey after we colonised and destroyed you, we did build infrastructure. Never mind that this reeks of the "white man's burden" and please forget that it is for the colonised to decide what is best for them and what is progress and how to progress.

3. You were not even a country. We made you a country. Never mind that the way how these countries were formed (Iraq, Pakistan, etc) have contributed in a significant way to the festering strife in those countries.

4. you were asking for it. you had it coming. Look some of your fellow countrymen even collaborated with us. Surely that means we had the mandate to loot and rape your country, no?

5. Everyone is evil. Mankind is evil. We only did what was acceptable and natural. Nevermind that we are still enjoying the fruits of the loot of your country and displaying them with pride in our museums.

Oh and lastly, lest I forget,

6. Nietzhe said blah blah, so don't call the empire evil. It is inappropriate.:rolleyes:

Did I miss anything?

Perhaps if you weren't so pleased at the second world war and terrorist attacks in London I might even believe you.

Idiot. I did not say I was pleased with the WW II and the terrorist attacks.

I merely pointed out how your policies (not those "naturally evolved circumstances" to which you were forced to react in a particular way) backfired on you.

The Raj paid Max Mueller for his perfidious work and backed scholars who spread this Aryan nonsense around since that was a handy tool to divide the Indian society into Aryans and Dravidians and getting some moral authority on the side (hey the Aryans - white men - conquered you once and spread civilisation, guess what..we are back and we are spreading civilisation again).

Hitler merely took it from you and went to the logical conclusions of your invented nonsensical theories.

No, I am not pleased at the deaths caused by WWII, but sure as hell, I won't stop pointing that it was a result of your own policies, just because you are sensitive to the death and destruction you suffered in WWII.

And reg 7/7. I have pointed out many a times that the sunni power base was cultivated in India by the Raj and it was the Raj's desire to have a pliant state to carry on the "great game" that was a significant factor behind the creation of Pakistan. And to contain a "gaullist" India, Pakistan was sustained by UK despite the UK knowing damn well about the terrorism that Pakistan let loose on India.

Many of the Paki terrorists orgs had a free run in UK precisely because the administration let it since it's interests were in protecting Pakistan.

Result is that UK is now a cesspool of Pakistani terrorists as evidenced by 7/7.

And NO, I am still not please at the death of the unfortunate people on that day. As someone who has suffered terrorism first hand, I can never gloat like you have said.

But sure as hell, I will not stop pointing out the wrong policies of the Raj and the successive British administrations. If that makes you feel uncomfortable, I don't care.

I will never ever stop calling the British empire evil, because that is what it is.

That is your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

May I ask if you believe that the French/Spanish/Italian/Portuguese/Belgian empire was evil?

It is not possible to condone all of the actions of any Empire. It will always amount to bloodshed. However, what we are getting at, is that Britain was perhaps "the lesser of two evils". I would think it fair to say that Britain was the "most benevolant" Empire, but that can not absolve it of all evil. However, as far as the original poster and the title question is concerned, it is not responsible for any of the things outlined on page one, nor is it responsible for the world's problems.
What it is responsible for is the hardships suffered by the Indians under British rule. You could also say that it is responsible for industrialising these nations, but that is no excuse, even if it does count as a reason to make it seem that this Empire was better than others before it. The underlying point of people on this side of the argument about the Empire is that it did things that other Empires did not, which made life in a British colony slightly better than in any other colony. Again, I shall say this: "Lesser of two evils"

No...unless you hold the UK accountable for the emergence of the USA, then by causality links, it is accountable. I hold the Empire in the utmost respect, as do I the Crown. I may detest the UK's current government, but the UK is hardly the source of the world's problems.

moron :rolleyes:

That is your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

Why thank you.

May I ask if you believe that the French/Spanish/Italian/Portuguese/Belgian empire was evil?

That is for those who suffered under them to decide. From what I have heard of the Spanish inquisitions in Latin America and the death of the Mayan, Incan and Aztec nations, I would think that the Spanish empire would give a tough fight to the British empire.

what we are getting at, is that Britain was perhaps "the lesser of two evils".

It does not matter to the millions who died literally like flies in the Bengal famines that the British empire was "lesser of the two evils".

For many of us the British Raj were the personification of evil.

I thought I mentioned this ago, but I will repeat this again. Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, who colluded with the Axis powers and started the Indian National army to fight the British, is still revered as a great hero. He is deified in his native state of Bengal.

Now you may be aghast and disgusted at the very thought of respecting somebody who colluded with Hitler (and I understand and agree with it from your POV) , but we don't think so. For Netaji (Neta = leader, a title given with respect to S.C.Bose), Hitler was the lesser of the two evils (at that time frame).


You could also say that it is responsible for industrialising these nations, but that is no excuse, even if it does count as a reason to make it seem that this Empire was better than others before it.

This is anothey myth. The industrialising part.

Indian industries were destroyed by the Britishers by various methods like imposing tariffs, denying access to technology, taxes, etc so that goods manufactured in Britain can be dumped on the Indians.

Indians were prohibited from owning factories. Indians were not allowed to own ships to transport goods to export markets. Indians who defied these restrictions like "Kappalottiya Thamizhan" (literally meaning the Tamil who ran a ship) V.O.Chidambaram were taken to court and incarcerated for daring to develop indigeneous facilities.

The development was only in railways and transportation which was designed to facilitate faster transportation of raw material.

If you see the railway tracks in the British Raj, many of them would be leading to no population centres, but to the places where resources and raw materials were situated.

In essence, industrial development in India was limited to exploiting resources of India and later the processed goods were dumped on India for further looting.

Many leaders later came to realise this looting and started the Swadeshi movement which was aimed at making Indians aware of this looting of resources and only buy Indian goods.

Remember pictures of Gandhi with a spinning wheel ?

It is the spinning of "Khadi" a cotton cloth that Indians can buy and wear instead of buying western dumped clothes.

Benevolent empire - Bah.

Again I wish to reiterate that I have no animosity at all towards the current British people and the British govt. Well except for those who keep telling me that I was colonised, raped and looted and impoverished for my own good and that I would have been subjected to more evil if not for their "benevolence"

Oh did I mention that "loot" is a Hindi word which entered the British lexicon following the battle of Plassey which resulting in the looting of Bengal by the East India company?

A summary of apologism

1. You see, I only killed and raped and looted you less. Everyone were doing it. We also did it. Why are you blaming me? Look at the Nazi and be thankful we were not as worse as the nazis were.

2. Hey after we colonised and destroyed you, we did build infrastructure. Never mind that this reeks of the "white man's burden" and please forget that it is for the colonised to decide what is best for them and what is progress and how to progress.

3. You were not even a country. We made you a country. Never mind that the way how these countries were formed (Iraq, Pakistan, etc) have contributed in a significant way to the festering strife in those countries.

4. you were asking for it. you had it coming. Look some of your fellow countrymen even collaborated with us. Surely that means we had the mandate to loot and rape your country, no?

5. Everyone is evil. Mankind is evil. We only did what was acceptable and natural. Nevermind that we are still enjoying the fruits of the loot of your country and displaying them with pride in our museums.



Hahahah, good one :P

Still, one must always choose the lesser fo two evils no?

And THEN we embarrased everyone by painting their bits of the map willy pink :D


Although from what I can gather, the main reason for the building of the Empire was to make the french look bad :P

"Hahah, ours is bigger than yours"

Although from what I can gather, the main reason for the building of the Empire was to make the french look bad :P

"Hahah, ours is bigger than yours"

hahahah ...I think you are actually correct.

the british goverment did all it could to help palistine.

but the jews wanted a country after world war 2 and decided to TAKE isreal for themselves.

even tho they were offered uganda they used terroist actions to force the british gov to withdraw troops from the area as the british public did not want soldiers being killed now that the war was over.

it was this public pressure that led to the withdraw of troops within the region and with no british troops to protect the palistinians the jews took the piss and seized any land they could.



First off, if you want to post on a topic you know nothing about, at least use some form of spell check. Palestine is not spelled 'palistine', and it wouldn't hurt to be a bit respectful and maybe capitalize the word Jew like you would with any other religion. Besides for that, Israel is a country and also should be capitalized.

Now let's see about that claim of Jews 'seizing any land they could'. First, I would like to point out that in 1917 the British government, then the legitimate governing power in the region, wrote the Balfour Declaration stating "His Majesty's Government view[s] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object". At this time, 'Palestine' included all of biblical Palestine which stretched across most of the modern day country of Jordan, and which was more than five times as large. However, then the British began a policy of backing away from this policy, until, in 1947, they finally withdrew from the area.

Now it was left to the United Nations to decide what would be done with the region. In 1948 they approved the Partition Plan, creating a Jewish homeland to be named Israel, a separate Palestinian state, and an international zone in Jerusalem. The plan was an immediate success in Israel, even though it granted Israel a country less than half the size of California. Of course, the 'helpless Palestinians' and their Arab allies could not allow this to happen. Sure, they had a state, as well as twenty-one other Arab countries in the region, but the Jews had a tiny strip of land that was only 1/500 the land mass of the rest of the Arab world. No matter, this could not be allowed to continue.

On May 15, 1948, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iraq declared war on the fledgling Israeli state (which had been legitimately formed by the full body of the United Nations). Calls were issued for the Palestinians to leave their homes in order to stay out of the path of invading Arab armies, with promises of new ones on the wreckage of Israeli towns. Many Palestinian 'refugees' decided to heed this call, thinking to return within a month. Unfortunately, the fighting dragged on for twenty months, and when it finally ended Israel was still there, as it was in 1956, 1963, 1967, and 1973. Hardly 'stealing the land'.

Now as far as Israel 'seiz any land they could', does anybody here really believe that? This is the Israeli army that in six days drove an invading Egyptian army across the entire Sinai Peninsula and then gave every inch of land back for the sake of peace. This is the Israeli army that became the first ever to take out a modern anti-aircraft battery, the army of which six soldiers managed to hold off a few dozen Syrian tanks for the better part of a day. This is the Israel that recently pulled out of the entire Gaza strip, forcibly expelling its own settlers, when their presence in the area became unnecessary. This is the Israeli army that, behind the United States and Britain, is ranked as the world's [I]third most powerful army (yes, in front of China and Russia as well as other world superpowers. And yet, this is the Israel that is content with a total area of 20,770 sq km! For a better idea of the size that I am talking about, click here (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/reference_maps/middle_east.html) for a map of the Middle East. Yes, it's that little thing, the country you could cover up with your little finger. Unlike say, Great Britain, the original topic of the post, Israeli's are content to live on that little strip of land because that's all that they need. Before spitting out complete garbage straight from the clueless media, check your facts. Or at least, for God's sake, check a map!

Finally, how is it that Israel has no legitimate right to exist whereas every other country in the region, formed at the same time, is completely legitimate? After defeating the Ottoman Empire, the Allied countries drew up a map of the Middle East at Versailles and carved it into sections. Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq, etc. all came into being at this conference. At the very same conference, Palestine was set out more than five times the size of the modern state of Israel, and put under the authority of the British as a joint protectorate of Arabs and Jews. The Arabs got 4/5 of that piece in Jordan, and the Jews got the remaining 1/5, yet who is complaining again? Not the party that got stuck with a state barely larger than Massachusetts, but those that want to 'throw the Jews into the sea'. Unfortunately, the very same conference that formed all of these Arab states is the one that set out the state in Palestine. If you want to tell me that Israel was illegitimately formed, then so were all of the other states at that conference. A bit of a double standard, eh?

This is anothey myth. The industrialising part.


Perhaps it is different in India. I know that in parts of Africa, many businesses were set up by British companies. They built railways and factories. On independence, many of these businesses were nationalised, thus going to native ownership.

As for India, I'm suggesting that the infrastructure was built, and perhaps it wouldn't have been without British rule. Now that isn't in any way an excuse for atrocities caused, however, it is one thing that the British Empire gave to its colonies, that other Empires did not. Therefore,I am suggesting that things could have been a lot worse for India. Again, that is not support for any hardships caused, it is a mere statement. If Britain was evil, what was Spain? Those who wiped out races?


Just to clarify, sir, can I ask which way you voted in the title poll? Do you believe that Britain is the source of most of the world's problems?

Well I'll apologise for the British Empire.

Sorry for exporting concepts like
i) the rule of law
ii) innocent until proven guilty and
iii) contitutional monarchy

Oh, and for Indians, sorry for banning Cali-worship, where widows were burnt alive on their husbands' funeral pyres.

Perhaps it is different in India. I know that in parts of Africa, many businesses were set up by British companies. They built railways and factories. On independence, many of these businesses were nationalised, thus going to native ownership.

Yes. I agree. But you would also have to agree that in Africa also the railways were built primarily for the extraction of resources and faster movement of troops. Not as a benefit for the people. The benefits were incidental not intentional.

The empire's policies and actions were desingned for only one purpose. The perpetuation and preservation and expansion/consolidation of the empire so that resources/raw materials can be extracted and manufactured goods can be dumped in return.

Consequently every seemingly good action by the empire has a bad side and the converse is true also, I agree. We need to see both sides of the coin (the good and the bad) and currently all the narrative and literature out there is heavily focussed on only one side. I am hoping with the emotional attachment to the empire receding among modern day Brits (like you), you will be able to see it from our side too. :)


As for India, I'm suggesting that the infrastructure was built, and perhaps it wouldn't have been without British rule.

No. This is frankly an insult to our capabilities.

What makes you think that in the absence of colonialism, we would not have progressed?

This is especially facetious on your part when there are sufficient evidences to postulate that the Industrial revolution in Britain was funded by the loot from India.

Have we not made vast strides in science and technology since the British left India, despite the British system of education was designed to produce "gumastas" - civil administration clerks who faithfully follow orders?

If Britain was evil, what was Spain? Those who wiped out races?


India is unique in that it was impossible to be wiped out.

I wish to point out that there were a few things that saved the Indian civilization from going the way of the Mayans, Incans, Aztecs and the other Indians (I hate that way of referring to the native Americans - its an insult to them and to us)

Huge population, strong spiritual roots and the Hindu renaissance (Bhakti movement) and ironically the caste system (the caste system is a source of great social stability) being primary factors for the survival of the civilization despite close to 1000 years of rule by oppressive regimes.



Just to clarify, sir, can I ask which way you voted in the title poll? Do you believe that Britain is the source of most of the world's problems?

Please do away with the sir. You make me feel old. I am still in my twenties.:)

Actually I have not voted, because I think the question is wrongly phrased.

The British empire can be rightfully accused of atleast contributing significantly (if not being the "source") to atleast some of the world's problems - the looting and impoverishment of the sub-continent, the partitions and arbitrary lines on the map dividing people and creation of inherently unstable political entities etc.

But I do not wish to blame the current country called Britain and especially its citizens for those things - as long as - they do not identify themselves too much with the empire and think that they did a favor to the colonies.

You can keep the loot, I am sure we will become a wealthy country once again - it is our natural destiny - but please don't ever tell me that I was colonised for my own good. It is a judgement that I and I alone can make. Not you.:)

Here are some examples to jog your memory.


* Northern Ireland
* Palenstine
* Iraq
* Africa
* America
As mentioned by I V Stalin:
* India

Northern Ireland is self explaintory.

Palenstine was under British mandate until the 1940s (after gaining it in World War I) when the Brits pulled out and Jews created their own country much to the displeasure of the Arabs.

Iraq, after World War One, the British lumped together three diffrent groups of people who since the dawn of Islam have mostly wanted to beat the shit out of other and kill each other (except the Kurds, who just a want country...)

Africa... also self-explantory.

America is just a joke. But well they did tax and we formed our own country which is ruled by a moron and has been ruled other morons in the past, but hey, it's beats out living under the British.



Thank you.[/b]



Well, to some extent, they are, but just because they were the previous big kids on the block and the failed to clean up all their imperialist messes.

Oh, and America is not a joke. Just so you know.

Here's a westerner's (Mike Davis) perspective. Albeit a dated article, it is still pertinent.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,436495,00.html
n India, as in El Salvador, Turkey and Armenia previously, grief turns to anger as survivors confront the 'unnatural' dimensions of earthquake disaster. Thousands have perished less as a result of plate tectonics than of poorly, even criminally constructed homes, schools and factories. Hundreds of people who might have been saved have died in the rubble for want of rescue equipment. The core issue is not seismicity but vulnerability to extreme but inevitable natural events.

The facile explanations are 'poverty' and 'underdevelopment', yet there is another, more ghostly, culprit: the enduring disaster of the Raj.

A hundred years ago, the residents of Ahmedabad were also burning their dead on huge, makeshift funeral pyres. The death toll in 1901, however, was a full order of magnitude greater than today's. Drought, famine and cholera in tandem scythed down one in six of Gandhi's fellow Gujaratis. Among outcast or tribal people, the mortality was closer to 30 per cent.

As in the latest tragedy, the proximate cause was environmental: an epic monsoon failure, probably arising from the global El Niño event of 1899-1900 that turned Gujarat's 'once green as a park' countryside (according to an American missionary) into 'a blasted waste of barren stumps and burned fields'. A correspondent of the Times of India was unnerved by the vast dome of blue, cloudless sky over a slowly dying landscape: 'I do do not think I ever hated blue before, but I do now.'

The drought, which afflicted most of north-central India, was counterbalanced by bumper harvests in Bengal and Burma. As the official famine report would later emphasise: 'Owing to the excellent system of communications which now brings every portion of the presidency into close connection with the great market, the supplies of food were at all times sufficient.'

[B]Traditional Indian polities like the Moguls and the Marathas had zealously policed the grain trade in the public interest, distributing free food, fixing prices and embargoing exports. As one horrified British writer discovered, these 'oriental despots' sometimes punished traders who short-changed peasants during famines by amputating equivalent weights of merchant flesh.

The British worshipped a savage god known as the 'Invisible Hand' that forbade state interference in the grain trade. Like previous viceroys (Lytton in 1877 and Elgin in 1897), Lord Curzon allowed food surpluses to be exported to England or hoarded by speculators in heavily guarded depots. Curzon, whose appetite for viceregal pomp and circumstance was legendary, lectured starving villagers that 'any government which imperilled the financial position of India in the interests of prodigal philanthropy would be open to serious criticism; but any government which by indiscriminate alms-giving weakened the fibre and demoralised the self-reliance of the population, would be guilty of a public crime'.

Vaughan Nash of the Manchester Guardian and Louis Klopsch of the New York Christian Herald were appalled by Curzon's 'penal minimum' ration (15 ounces of rice for a day's hard labour) as well as the shocking conditions tolerated in the squalid relief camps, where tens of thousands perished from cholera.

'Millions of flies,' wrote Klopsch, 'were permitted undisturbed to pester the unhappy victims. One young woman who had lost every one dear to her, and had turned stark mad, sat at the door vacantly staring at the awful scenes around her.'

Despite Kiplingesque myths of heroic benevolence, official attitudes were nonchalant. British officials rated Indian ethnicities like cattle, and vented contempt against them even when they were dying in their multitudes. Asked to explain why mortality in Gujarat was so high, a district officer told the famine commission: 'The Gujarati is a soft man... accustomed to earn his good food easily. In the hot weather, he seldom worked at all and at no time did he form the habit of continuous labour. Very many even among the poorest had never taken a tool in hand in their lives. They lived by watching cattle and crops, by sitting in the fields to weed, by picking cotton, grain and fruit, and by... pilfering.'

Gujaratis are famously industrious and probably enjoyed a higher average level of nutrition and well-being than their English contemporaries before the arrival of the East India Company.

In 1901, before the famine had run its course, the Lancet suggested that a conservative estimate of 'excess mortality' in India from starvation and hunger-related disease during the previous decade was 19 million.

As the great Indian political economist Romesh Chunder Dutt pointed out in one of his Open Letters to Lord Curzon , British Progress was India's Ruin. The railroads, ports and canals which enthused Karl Marx in the 1850s were for resource extraction, not indigenous development. The taxes that financed the railroads and the Indian army pauperised the peasantry.

Even in the macabre denouement of the Gujarat famine, the Government announced that 'the revenue must at all costs be gathered in', an act which Vaughan Nash denounced as 'picking the bones of the people'. When patidar farmers, ruined by the drought, combined to refuse a 24 per cent increase in their taxes, the collectors simply confiscated their land.

On the expenditure side, a colonial budget largely financed by taxes on farm and land returned less than 2 per cent to agriculture and education. While a progressive and independent Asian nation like Siam was annually investing two shillings per capita on education and public health, the Raj expended barely one penny per person as 'human capital'.

Not surprisingly, there was no increase in India's per capita income during the whole period of British overlordship from 1757 to 1947. Celebrated cash-crop booms went hand in hand with declining agrarian productivity and food security. Moreover, two decades of demographic growth (in the 1870s and 1890s) were entirely wiped out in avoidable famines, while throughout that 'glorious imperial half century' from 1871 to 1921 immortalised by Kipling, the life expectancy of ordinary Indians fell by a staggering 20 per cent.

This is the catastrophic past from which Indians are still trying to dig themselves free.

Keep in mind that since independance, there has been no famines in India despite many monsoon failures. We once had to beg wheat from the US but due to the green revolution of the 80s India is now a food surplus country despite the tripling of population to more than a billion now.

So much for British efficiency and teaching the natives how to administer the country.;)

Here are some examples to jog your memory.


* Northern Ireland
* Palenstine
* Iraq
* Africa
* America
As mentioned by I V Stalin:
* India

Northern Ireland is self explaintory.

Palenstine was under British mandate until the 1940s (after gaining it in World War I) when the Brits pulled out and Jews created their own country much to the displeasure of the Arabs.

Iraq, after World War One, the British lumped together three diffrent groups of people who since the dawn of Islam have mostly wanted to beat the shit out of other and kill each other (except the Kurds, who just a want country...)

Africa... also self-explantory.

America is just a joke. But well they did tax and we formed our own country which is ruled by a moron and has been ruled other morons in the past, but hey, it's beats out living under the British.

Thank you.[/b]

America was screwed because there are too many conservatives (probably 200 million)
Iraq is in the same class as Yugoslavia, which was the Versai Treaty(sp) at the end of WWI, which was French and Americans as well
Africa was significently French and Portugese, and Zimbabwe was fine until Mugabe took over after independence.
India is not a problem due to British rule, but religious tensions between Hindu and Muslims

Actually, yes. Do you or do you not think that the world has advanced since the British Empire? If your answer is yes, then Laenis is right- behaviour and civilisation have improved, and thus people have the ability to change for the better. If your answer is no, then human nature, not the British Empire is responsible for the bad things that happen. To be simplistic.Nice strawman. Thought of a name for it yet?You make me feel kinda nauseous too, son.I'll take that as a compliment.

Incidentially, would you please remind me when humanity thought up the golden rule? - It was sometime in the late 1970s, right? Or are you just full of irellevant nonsense?

I would suggest that the aftermath of colonialism is responsible in large part for a large part of the world's human-related problems. Britain being the most successful colonizer would give them the biggest share of blame, but it's not exactly unique.

the Maori probably have a beef with the English too I imagine.
Hmm. The English ripped Maori off and started the Maori downfall. Now there are no full Maori left and many are still fighting to get land that their ancestors were tricked out of. So yes, I think some Maori do have "beef" with English. But this is more oldschool stuff.

Idiot.

But sure as hell, I will not stop pointing out the wrong policies of the Raj and the successive British administrations. If that makes you feel uncomfortable, I don't care.

I will never ever stop calling the British empire evil, because that is what it is.

Now now. Insults at this late stage?

I notice that you didn't comment on the arrogance of your post re speaking on behalf of a billion people.

Make me uncomfortable? Only because my sides are aching from laughing at your bitterness and hyperbole nearly two generations on. You really need to get over it. I wasn't there. And neither were you. My ancestors were run off their land in the Highlands. Many died en route to Canada. I could continue to hate the rich Scottish barons and the English for it, but frankly that would be ludicrous. Almost as ludicrous as your invective, though I think I'd find that difficult.

Was. Was evil. And you know what? Parts of it were. I don't support what was done, and never have. No one on here has (seriously), so far as I can see.

It was of its time and of its culture. No more no less. If you like, I could wish it hadn't happened. I certainly wish partition had been handled better. I also wish that the British army had behaved better in Africa, New Zealand and many other places it was stationed. But so far as I can see, that won't happen.

Just because you can't contain your glee at the the response of a tiny handful of radical Muslim British citizens in killing innocents really doesn't make me an idiot. It might be argued that it makes you a brutal cynic, but I don't think that's appropriate here.

(the caste system is a source of great social stability) being primary factors for the survival of the civilization despite close to 1000 years of rule by oppressive regimes.

So was the Empire for many peoples before its inevitable fall. Your bigotry is really beginning to show here.

Nice strawman. Thought of a name for it yet?I'll take that as a compliment.

Incidentially, would you please remind me when humanity thought up the golden rule? - It was sometime in the late 1970s, right? Or are you just full of irellevant nonsense?

How is this a strawman? The question being asked and answered (in case you have forgotten) is "Is the British government the source of most of the world's problems." Now, we've moved to "the British Empire". That's fine, since the answer to the original point is patently "no".

I then asked if the world is better or worse since the Empire. If you think that is irrelevant, then I am at a loss to see how we can continue the argument. It doesn't answer the question, but it certainly progresses the debate.

Unlike the insults, invective and general toy throwing that you and Aryavartha
have been indulging in.

Oh, and keep taking the stemetil. You'll feel better soon.