NationStates Jolt Archive

Quoted from the Bill for Proper English thread.
You went to India to enslave it's people. Don't attempt to sidestep the truth in the name of false "big brother" logic. The Imperial age mixed racism with faux-charity to enslave people worldwise.

People in India were forced to raise crops that they would not otherwise have to sell by British slavers. British police would arrest and imprison (often violently) those who dared to critiscise their tyrannical reign.

You taxed without representation, you denied people self determination, and you helped to create the modern instability in the Middle East and other areas.

You, sir, are reinterpretting history. Falsely.
Dropping the NBIP persona for a moment, allow me to say that there is simply no way of knowing what the British intent was when they made the journey to India. There is no doubt, to me, that the British overstayed their welcome. However, I continue to maintain that there were many advantages to British rule, as well as disadvantages. It does a poor service to a proud people to daemonize an entire portion of their history without sufficient justification, which leads me to the next section of this post.

As a gentleman and as the NBIP's Minister for the Promotion of the Emparh's History, I demand satisfaction for the myriad charges and insults to myself and to the Queen. I thus challenge Kinda Sensible People to prove the assertions that he made above, and request that he provide citations for any figures used (within reason), as I will attempt to do.

KSP:

Your first paragraph is a mixture of emotion and baseless assertion. I see no real need to elabourate.

As for your second paragraph, I request a few examples from reputable historical texts.

Third paragraph; are you talking just about India, or about the entire British Empire? I suspect the latter from your references.

Firstly: Yes. The Empire made mistakes, taxation without representation was one of them. However, there existed within India the Covenanted Civil Service, a force of men (both Indian and White) who acted as judges, local governors and multipurpose appendages of the Raj. They were the highest level of official who interacted as part of their normal job with the people, and acted as two-way representatives. To the people, they represented the Raj. To the British, they represented the people.

Granted, there were no Indian MPs. But there were Indian Civil Servicemen, who wielded all the power of the ICS and the Raj in judicial roles, in gubernatorial roles and (in the early days) as surveyors and travelling representatives. There was a de facto representative body, certainly.

The breakup of the British Empire, and the speed with which it was done, form one of the major reasons for instability in the middle east. Had England not been so eager to rid itself of its Empire after WWII, the map would look much more different. Please recall, sah, the British successfully kept the peace in the Middle East through fairly nonviolent means, despite having to deal with similar tribal and sectarian conflicts as the United States is in Iraq.

I should really bring this to a close, it's midnight and I'm not covering myself with glory. However, do pop by.

If you're not Kinda Sensible People, I would be obliged if you kept your posting to a minimum. This is a private duel, damn your eyes. :p

Surely you'll need a second?

I demand a different kind of satisfaction. :D

The entire idea of saying that people, events, or actions in the past (especially in diferrent cultures) is not good, how can we blame (morally) the British for something that 1: they aren't currently doing, and 2: happened a long time ago in a completely foreign culture (implying that Imperial British culture is quite different than contemporary Britain)

The entire idea of saying that people, events, or actions in the past (especially in diferrent cultures) is not good, how can we blame (morally) the British for something that 1: they aren't currently doing, and 2: happened a long time ago in a completely foreign culture (implying that Imperial British culture is quite different than contemporary Britain)

I recollect here the idea that "history is a foreign country" - a paradigm that is (justly) partly or wholely used in most of todays historiographical research. However, this does not mean that one cannot lay "blame" to an older culture for recent "wrongs". The problem is, that most recent wrongs are too easily blamed on an older culture so that a newer culture that is somehow engendered by the old one is absolved of any and all responsibility - therefore, disregarding (if any) its own faults in the process. Hence, the reaction of KSP, I think. Does current-day Brittain have any responsibility for the "faults" of its empiristic predecessor? Yes, but only because the consequences of it being "no" are far worse for the world as a whole. It's choising the lesser of two evils. Only if a "global entity" (like the UN) can take responsibility for "the past" (particular as it may be, but global since all past happens in a historical global context), proper reconciliation without any "evil" i.e. linking former to current engendered cultures can be pulled off.

Surely you'll need a second?

No offense, Weng, but if I were to nominate a second in this debate, it would be Ilaer. I think that he'd be the best able to carry on the defense of the Queen's good name in the event of my demise...

*strikes a dramatic pose and waits for KSP*

Quoted from the Bill for Proper English thread.

Dropping the NBIP persona for a moment, allow me to say that there is simply no way of knowing what the British intent was when they made the journey to India. There is no doubt, to me, that the British overstayed their welcome. However, I continue to maintain that there were many advantages to British rule, as well as disadvantages. It does a poor service to a proud people to daemonize an entire portion of their history without sufficient justification, which leads me to the next section of this post.

It does poor service to a realistic worldview to ignore the nature of imperialism and to instead attach a smug self-serving series of excuses for it. The cause for imperialism was a need for markets and resources. That was the cause of Mercantilism. Go read a High School history text book. They'll agree. It was, esentially, slavery.


As for your second paragraph, I request a few examples from reputable historical texts.

It was one of the main reasons for Ghandi's origional Indian activism. Farmers in (I think) western India were forced to grow Indigo, rather than a food crop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champaran_and_Kheda_Satyagraha#Champaran.2C_Bihar

Third paragraph; are you talking just about India, or about the entire British Empire? I suspect the latter from your references.

The entire empire, although most of them are true of India alone as well.

Firstly: Yes. The Empire made mistakes, taxation without representation was one of them. However, there existed within India the Covenanted Civil Service, a force of men (both Indian and White) who acted as judges, local governors and multipurpose appendages of the Raj. They were the highest level of official who interacted as part of their normal job with the people, and acted as two-way representatives. To the people, they represented the Raj. To the British, they represented the people.

Granted, there were no Indian MPs. But there were Indian Civil Servicemen, who wielded all the power of the ICS and the Raj in judicial roles, in gubernatorial roles and (in the early days) as surveyors and travelling representatives. There was a de facto representative body, certainly.

Which was, essentially, powerless, when it went to the contrary of the wishes of Britain.

The breakup of the British Empire, and the speed with which it was done, form one of the major reasons for instability in the middle east. Had England not been so eager to rid itself of its Empire after WWII, the map would look much more different. Please recall, sah, the British successfully kept the peace in the Middle East through fairly nonviolent means, despite having to deal with similar tribal and sectarian conflicts as the United States is in Iraq.

Spare me your posturing, please. What happened in the Middle East (much like what happened in Southeast Asia) was that colonial powers concentrated groups together with arbitrary boundaries that have now led to ethnic and religious conflict. It's happening in Iraq right now, it happened in Burma, and it has happened on a smaller scale throughout most of Africa.

Remember Apartheit? You helped to make that too.

I should really bring this to a close, it's midnight and I'm not covering myself with glory. However, do pop by.

If you're not Kinda Sensible People, I would be obliged if you kept your posting to a minimum. This is a private duel, damn your eyes. :p


Calling me out in public? Sir, this is rudeness beyond all measure! :p

And: Just as a clarification. I do not hold modern Brits to be at fault for their ancestor's sins (although, to a certain extent, we need to take actions to fix the past). I beleive that Britain, in the past, was horribly abusive in it's empire (However, so were France, Spain, Denmark (Um... One of those smaller European countries anyway), and a host of others).

The only good thing the UK has ever managed to due is Canada.

Everything else has been an utter failure.

I demand a different kind of satisfaction. :D

Bow-chicka wow wow.

It does poor service to a realistic worldview to ignore the nature of imperialism and to instead attach a smug self-serving series of excuses for it. The cause for imperialism was a need for markets and resources. That was the cause of Mercantilism. Go read a High School history text book. They'll agree. It was, esentially, slavery.

High school textbooks are not, on average, particularly intelligent or well researched. The book Lies My Teacher Told Me discusses a number of them, and finds them wholly unsatisfactory. However, I suspect that this wasn't your main point.

Ad hominem arguments don't suit you, please avoid them. I am neither being smug nor self-serving, I am arguing a point.

[The Civil Service] was, essentially, powerless, when it went to the contrary of the wishes of Britain.
Source? Supporting argument? This is an extremely general statement.

Spare me your posturing, please. What happened in the Middle East (much like what happened in Southeast Asia) was that colonial powers concentrated groups together with arbitrary boundaries that have now led to ethnic and religious conflict. It's happening in Iraq right now, it happened in Burma, and it has happened on a smaller scale throughout most of Africa.
Do you contend that tribal or sectarian conflict would not be a problem had the so-called 'imperialists' not intervened? The vast majority of these conflicts stretch back for thousands of years-- for example, the Sunni/Shi'ite sectarian conflict has been going, of and on, since the C7th, CE.

The fact is, under 'imperialist' rule, there was (for the most part) peace in the Middle East. Vast amounts of money moved through Aden and Alexandria. Britain and France, in conjunction with Egyptian local authority, built the Suez canal. This was the major shipping route for trade between Europe and Asia, as well as a major commercial centre. Don't tell me that there were no immediate, concrete benefits for the people of Aden, Alexandria and Port Said.

If you look at a map (mine is a National Geographic Atlas, 1998), many of the largest and most urbanized cities in the Red Sea area are those occupied, at one point or another, by Britain. The Suez remains a key waterway linking the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean-- a waterway built with British and French money.

Did the redrawing of borders cause tribal violence, though? Perhaps, or perhaps it was a symptom of a naturally unstable socio-political system.

Africa has thousands of indigenous nations* or tribes, each very small. If we imagine that other, non-African peoples never encountered the African Continent, we can imagine a map that looks like a mosaic-- thousands of roughly circular nation-states that denote a single tribe's influence. There exist such maps, but I'm unable to find one at the moment. I'll see if I can later, but Google Images is failing me for now.

At any rate, as with all nation-states, many of these tribes are at war with their neighbours. Some have been for centuries, not unlike the Sunnis and Shi'ites mentioned above. They would still be at war without colonial interference, since the root causes (in some cases long-forgotten anyway) predated colonial Africa.

I will repeat: I am not trying to say that Imperial Britian is blameless; it certainly did some awful things. However, I'm really rather tired of the problems of the world being assigned to imperialism, rather than other far more complex causes. Quite simply, it's easy to teach that It's The Brits' Fault, and most people are willing to accept that. It's much harder (and sometimes unecessary) to discuss the racial, economic and religious tensions that have existed in the course of human affairs for thousands of years. However, it is far too easy to go from justly critical to unjustly dogmatic-- just as it is far too easy to go from reasoned support to jingoism. I try to avoid it, but I'm sure that I fall into it from time to time.

*here I use the anthropological definition. A nation, for this purpose, is a a culturally, linguistically, religiously or racially distinct group of people. It does not apply to political divisions, for which the term state is used. For example, there is a Welsh nation, a Scottish nation and a British nation (in extremely gross terms, each includes several sub-nations) in the UK.

EDIT: :fluffle: To Japanese pride, the greatest troll evah. :fluffle:
Awesome.

High school textbooks are not, on average, particularly intelligent or well researched. The book Lies My Teacher Told Me discusses a number of them, and finds them wholly unsatisfactory. However, I suspect that this wasn't your main point.

Meh. I've read it. It seemed like an entirely self-serving peice that fails to really point out major failures in history education (you'll also notice, by the way, that many of the "lies" [Really by omission] that he attacks are ones that supported imperialism and colonialism). During my history education, I found that most of the things he complained about were adressed in full in the classroom (then again, we had the best book of the lot).

Ad hominem arguments don't suit you, please avoid them. I am neither being smug nor self-serving, I am arguing a point.

I think that the whole "Wot wot" act is stupid, and takes away from the debate. If you want to argue with me, don't waste my time with silly posturing.


Source? Supporting argument? This is an extremely general statement.

Seen Ghandi? If you have, do you remember the Parliamentary scene, in which it is paralyzed by the desire to not cross Britain? How about the masacres carried out in the name of British troops by Indian members of the military?

I admit that I'm drawing from a 9th grade Asian history class that only spent about a month on India and a 10th gade course that spent about 2 months on African colonialism. I don't have a formal source for either, since they were, respectively 3 and 2 years ago, and I no longer have either text.

Do you contend that tribal or sectarian conflict would not be a problem had the so-called 'imperialists' not intervened? The vast majority of these conflicts stretch back for thousands of years-- for example, the Sunni/Shi'ite sectarian conflict has been going, of and on, since the C7th, CE.

I contend that the treatment of the Imperial powers: cramming these people into arbitrary divisions that ended up placing enemies beside one another, has exacerbated the problem.

The fact is, under 'imperialist' rule, there was (for the most part) peace in the Middle East. Vast amounts of money moved through Aden and Alexandria. Britain and France, in conjunction with Egyptian local authority, built the Suez canal. This was the major shipping route for trade between Europe and Asia, as well as a major commercial centre. Don't tell me that there were no immediate, concrete benefits for the people of Aden, Alexandria and Port Said.

If you look at a map (mine is a National Geographic Atlas, 1998), many of the largest and most urbanized cities in the Red Sea area are those occupied, at one point or another, by Britain. The Suez remains a key waterway linking the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean-- a waterway built with British and French money.

Smug big-brother logic is sickening. It was the logic that built the empires of the Colonial age in the first place. It is, essentially, dissengenuous and incorrect. Much of it is based off of the racist conclusion that by brining the "White man's way" to other peoples they were imrpoved.

This logic saw most of African history looted or destroyed by Colonialists, people put into slavery across Africa and in India, and the rise of the oh-so-generous Colonial powes.

Did the redrawing of borders cause tribal violence, though? Perhaps, or perhaps it was a symptom of a naturally unstable socio-political system.

Africa has thousands of indigenous nations* or tribes, each very small. If we imagine that other, non-African peoples never encountered the African Continent, we can imagine a map that looks like a mosaic-- thousands of roughly circular nation-states that denote a single tribe's influence. There exist such maps, but I'm unable to find one at the moment. I'll see if I can later, but Google Images is failing me for now.

At any rate, as with all nation-states, many of these tribes are at war with their neighbours. Some have been for centuries, not unlike the Sunnis and Shi'ites mentioned above. They would still be at war without colonial interference, since the root causes (in some cases long-forgotten anyway) predated colonial Africa.

Listen. When you force peoples into arbitrary countries assigned by administrators who know nothing about the people they administrate (due to smug assumptions that they were superior), you create clashes. Age old enemies were forced to share they same land. Because the division of Africa has followed imperialist lines (as has the Middle East), this means that many of these old foes are still fighting. Remember Rwanda? That's another case of (admitedly French) Imperial fuckups creating problems years later.

I will repeat: I am not trying to say that Imperial Britian is blameless; it certainly did some awful things. However, I'm really rather tired of the problems of the world being assigned to imperialism, rather than other far more complex causes. Quite simply, it's easy to teach that It's The Brits' Fault, and most people are willing to accept that. It's much harder (and sometimes unecessary) to discuss the racial, economic and religious tensions that have existed in the course of human affairs for thousands of years. However, it is far too easy to go from justly critical to unjustly dogmatic-- just as it is far too easy to go from reasoned support to jingoism. I try to avoid it, but I'm sure that I fall into it from time to time.

I dissagree. Simply put, there were problems before imperial powers arrived, but the arrival of imperial powers made everything worse. Their departure made things worse yet (In a hurry to divest themselves of their colonies, Imperialists failed to set up trained or capable governments, leading to a series of Communist and Junta-based revolutions and created governments unable to deal with the AIDS crisis).

I do, however, beleive that the debate is entirely academic (except insofar as it is one that allows us to understand that Imperialism is not something that anyone should engage in), and that it is more important that we deal with the present problems in Africa (when we have been asked to).

Meh. I've read it. It seemed like an entirely self-serving peice that fails to really point out major failures in history education (you'll also notice, by the way, that many of the "lies" [Really by omission] that he attacks are ones that supported imperialism and colonialism). During my history education, I found that most of the things he complained about were adressed in full in the classroom (then again, we had the best book of the lot).
And who, may I ask, is being smug here?
Seen Ghandi? If you have, do you remember the Parliamentary scene, in which it is paralyzed by the desire to not cross Britain?
Seen U-571?

That's an 'historic' film as well, and that's astonishingly innaccurate.

Don't take these things as true simply because they claim to be researched and "based on fact".
How about the masacres carried out in the name of British troops by Indian members of the military?
True, that was particularly awful.

On the other hand, how's about the infrastructural improvements carried out in the name of the British Empire by Indian workers?

How's about the educational improvements carried out in the name of the British Empire by Indian workers?

There were both positives and negatives to British Empire rule of India. Our history in Africa was much less desirable, but India was actually an example of where we did a lot of good things, albeit at the cost of a lot of Indian culture (banning Suttee, for example - useful for women, not so good culturally).
I contend that the treatment of the Imperial powers: cramming these people into arbitrary divisions that ended up placing enemies beside one another, has exacerbated the problem.
They were already next to each other, or they wouldn't really have been able to fight now, would they?
Smug big-brother logic is sickening. It was the logic that built the empires of the Colonial age in the first place. It is, essentially, dissengenuous and incorrect. Much of it is based off of the racist conclusion that by brining the "White man's way" to other peoples they were imrpoved.

This logic saw most of African history looted or destroyed by Colonialists, people put into slavery across Africa and in India, and the rise of the oh-so-generous Colonial powes.
That didn't address anything that Gurg said. The British and French empires helped a fair few of the places that it went to. See the Suez canal, which the Egyptians still make a considerable amount of money from to this day.

Correct, in a lot of Africa we did a lot more harm than good, but that wasn't always the case.
Listen. When you force peoples into arbitrary countries assigned by administrators who know nothing about the people they administrate (due to smug assumptions that they were superior), you create clashes. Age old enemies were forced to share they same land.
No, it was more like "hmm these age-old enemies could be useful tools to us, what with their killing each other and all. Since they are already in the same place, let's arm one group of them, so that they win this clash".
Because the division of Africa has followed imperialist lines (as has the Middle East), this means that many of these old foes are still fighting.
They would still be fighting today, regardless of imperial involvement... power struggles will always exist in areas with limited resources capable of supporting human life, and Africa and the Middle East are very much areas of this type.
Remember Rwanda? That's another case of (admitedly French) Imperial fuckups creating problems years later.
Ehm... how?
I dissagree. Simply put, there were problems before imperial powers arrived, but the arrival of imperial powers made everything worse.
Well that just shows that you know nothing about what you're talking about and are instead lead by a blind hatred of the British and French empires.
Their departure made things worse yet (In a hurry to divest themselves of their colonies, Imperialists failed to set up trained or capable governments, leading to a series of Communist and Junta-based revolutions and created governments unable to deal with the AIDS crisis).
The reasons for those revolutions cannot lay entirely at the feet of the Empires that previously ruled those lands.

For starters, a lot of the military revolutions were because the previous military rulers from before imperial times, or a new group of hopefuls, wanted to assert the power that they previously had / that they wanted to have previously.

I don't really see how the communist revolutions (of which there were about three) were the fault of the previous occupiers either, to be honest.

As per the whole AIDS thing, most of the governments affected are spending their money moore wisely, it must be said, on providing adequate drinking water facilities for their people, which is saving many more lives than overpriced western antivirals.

Smug big-brother logic is sickening. It was the logic that built the empires of the Colonial age in the first place. It is, essentially, dissengenuous and incorrect. Much of it is based off of the racist conclusion that by brining the "White man's way" to other peoples they were imrpoved.

This logic saw most of African history looted or destroyed by Colonialists, people put into slavery across Africa and in India, and the rise of the oh-so-generous Colonial powes

You completely ignored the issue. Which was, that he pointed out that under British imperial rule, the Middle East was at peace. The retraction of said rule, and the mistakes made in doing so, is what is causing the current situation.

Can you demonstrate that the Middle East was not at peace under British rule?

I demand a different kind of satisfaction. :D

In the words of Mick Jagger, you "can't get no satisfaction"?

In the words of Mick Jagger, you "can't get no satisfaction"?

More specifically, I need a constant supply of satisfaction to avoid disruptions in service. :)

More specifically, I need a constant supply of satisfaction to avoid disruptions in service. :)

So... don't use public transit. :p

I am attempting not to argue any historical points. I am merely attempting to balance this thread somewhat, especially in the case of KSp (which is, I admit, somewhat biased).


...
If you're not Kinda Sensible People, I would be obliged if you kept your posting to a minimum. This is a private duel, damn your eyes. :p

Good show!


Remember Apartheit? You helped to make that too.


Apartheid. Please attempt the correct spelling when arguing such a debate. It detracts from your appearance of intelligence otherwise, unless it is merely a typo which, admittedly, everyone makes (myself especially).

High school textbooks are not, on average, particularly intelligent or well researched.
I will repeat: I am not trying to say that Imperial Britian is blameless; it certainly did some awful things. However, I'm really rather tired of the problems of the world being assigned to imperialism, rather than other far more complex causes. Quite simply, it's easy to teach that It's The Brits' Fault, and most people are willing to accept that. It's much harder (and sometimes unecessary) to discuss the racial, economic and religious tensions that have existed in the course of human affairs for thousands of years. However, it is far too easy to go from justly critical to unjustly dogmatic-- just as it is far too easy to go from reasoned support to jingoism. I try to avoid it, but I'm sure that I fall into it from time to time.


I would agree. From my own research I have found more mistakes in my history textbooks than they have pages; it is most vexing. We are attempting to learn when we are at school, but if they give us such substandard material how are we supposed to without resorting to our own research?

It is also very difficult to remain unbiased in debates such as these. As a patriotic Briton I rather often unintentionally fall into straight-out jingoism, despite my best efforts not too. However I am also capable of resorting to straight out prejudice, and occasionally even against the British and the Emparh. This mainly happens when I am in a state of serious depression as has not happened for almost half a year now, thank the gods.

During my history education, I found that most of the things he complained about were adressed in full in the classroom (then again, we had the best book of the lot).

I think that the whole "Wot wot" act is stupid, and takes away from the debate. If you want to argue with me, don't waste my time with silly posturing.

I admit that I'm drawing from a 9th grade Asian history class that only spent about a month on India and a 10th gade course that spent about 2 months on African colonialism. I don't have a formal source for either, since they were, respectively 3 and 2 years ago, and I no longer have either text.

Smug big-brother logic is sickening. It was the logic that built the empires of the Colonial age in the first place. It is, essentially, dissengenuous and incorrect. Much of it is based off of the racist conclusion that by brining the "White man's way" to other peoples they were imrpoved.

I do, however, beleive that the debate is entirely academic (except insofar as it is one that allows us to understand that Imperialism is not something that anyone should engage in), and that it is more important that we deal with the present problems in Africa (when we have been asked to).

To echo Yootopia, who is being smug now? To claim that these issues were addressed 'in full' is sheer folly; there is no aspect of history or, indeed, anything else that can be addressed 'in full', just as there is no such thing as 'perfection' and, branching into rather obscure physics, there is no way to conclusively prove ANYTHING. (Anyone who wishes to argue this last point: I shall set up a thread quite soon on the topic. Wait until I have done so and then attempt to shoot me down in flames. I doubt you will. I have some rather esoteric knowledge in my mind.)

As for Sah Gurguvungunit taking on an act with the 'wot, wot' and so on: I have not seen a single 'wot, wot' or, indeed, any related item of speech in this thread at all apart from yours. Do not take fault with things that do not exist.

In the case of that third point that I have drawn from your text, then how do you feel that you are qualified to state such a point or, indeed, claim any real knowledge whatsoever? ANY aspect of history requires simple exhaustive study before anything can be stated with any certainty whatsoever, and a mere two months or, in the case of that Asian history, a single month, is not NEARLY long enough.

Fourth point: Gurguvungunit's point is most certainly not founded on 'smug big-brother (a term which patently does not need a hyphen; are you American, by any chance?) logic'; indeed, I demand that you demonstrate why it is. The Lord Sah Gurguvungunit is merely speaking truth by any neutral source; it is most certainly not an example of unwarranted justification, if that's what I understand correctly your point to be meaning.

Seen U-571?

That's an 'historic' film as well, and that's astonishingly innaccurate.

Don't take these things as true simply because they claim to be researched and "based on fact".

There were both positives and negatives to British Empire rule of India. Our history in Africa was much less desirable, but India was actually an example of where we did a lot of good things, albeit at the cost of a lot of Indian culture (banning Suttee, for example - useful for women, not so good culturally).

That didn't address anything that Gurg said. The British and French empires helped a fair few of the places that it went to. See the Suez canal, which the Egyptians still make a considerable amount of money from to this day.

Correct, in a lot of Africa we did a lot more harm than good, but that wasn't always the case.

They would still be fighting today, regardless of imperial involvement... power struggles will always exist in areas with limited resources capable of supporting human life, and Africa and the Middle East are very much areas of this type.

Ehm... how?

Well that just shows that you know nothing about what you're talking about and are instead lead by a blind hatred of the British and French empires.

The reasons for those revolutions cannot lay entirely at the feet of the Empires that previously ruled those lands.


The good sir Yootopia has put forward a very good argument. Basing your opinions on films, no matter how stringently researched and truthful they claim to be, is not the mark of an intelligent person. Indeed, it is the mark of an idiot, or the average person at best. Do not argue your case if you are one of those two things.

Yootopia is putting forward one of the most balanced cases that I have ever seen. I would suggest that you learn from him how not to be an intolerant, unfounded-argument-mongering idiot.

Oh, and a good point, Becket court.

To everyone else:
Can none of you read? Aside from the good sir Yootopia who seems merely to have misunderstood, the rest of you seem to have completely ignored the fact that this is a debate between the Lord Sah Gurguvungunit and the Somewhat Damned Though Slightly Redeemed By His Apparent Love Of History Kinda Sensible people and no other, except possibly myself if the good sir Gurguvungunit steps down. Post your presumably humourous ramblings on another thread.

The Rt. Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, OBE, MBE, Lord Chancellor and Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)

Apartheid. Please attempt the correct spelling when arguing such a debate. It detracts from your appearance of intelligence otherwise, unless it is merely a typo which, admittedly, everyone makes (myself especially).

Very good, grammar Nazi. You found an error in my spelling. You can have a cookie now.

Frankly, if you have nothing of real value to say, then go somewhere else. This debate doesn't include you.

To echo Yootopia, who is being smug now? To claim that these issues were addressed 'in full' is sheer folly; there is no aspect of history or, indeed, anything else that can be addressed 'in full', just as there is no such thing as 'perfection' and, branching into rather obscure physics, there is no way to conclusively prove ANYTHING. (Anyone who wishes to argue this last point: I shall set up a thread quite soon on the topic. Wait until I have done so and then attempt to shoot me down in flames. I doubt you will. I have some rather esoteric knowledge in my mind.)

In full so far as necessity is concerned. Obviously, no class can adress every small detail, since they last only a year, but classes adressed the important part.

Once again, didacticism doesn't help the debate. Find something useful to say or stay out.

As for Sah Gurguvungunit taking on an act with the 'wot, wot' and so on: I have not seen a single 'wot, wot' or, indeed, any related item of speech in this thread at all apart from yours. Do not take fault with things that do not exist.

I have seen a "wot". Once again, obnoxious didacticism being used to ignore the real issues. Three strikes, you're out.

You completely ignored the issue. Which was, that he pointed out that under British imperial rule, the Middle East was at peace. The retraction of said rule, and the mistakes made in doing so, is what is causing the current situation.

Can you demonstrate that the Middle East was not at peace under British rule?

I don't ignore his point, I just point out that it is descended from an invalid form of racist logic that assumes that peace under the slaver's whip is better than the smaller wars that happened prior to the colonial age.

I don't ignore his point, I just point out that it is descended from an invalid form of racist logic that assumes that peace under the slaver's whip is better than the smaller wars that happened prior to the colonial age.
Peace and prosperity under the rule of someone else is worse is worse than civil war?

You really think that?

Very good, grammar Nazi. You found an error in my spelling. You can have a cookie now.

Frankly, if you have nothing of real value to say, then go somewhere else. This debate doesn't include you.



In full so far as necessity is concerned. Obviously, no class can adress every small detail, since they last only a year, but classes adressed the important part.

Once again, didacticism doesn't help the debate. Find something useful to say or stay out.



I have seen a "wot". Once again, obnoxious didacticism being used to ignore the real issues. Three strikes, you're out.


I do in fact have a reason to be here: this debate does include me. I am the Lord Sah Gurguvungunit's second; if he requests it then I shall step in for him. Going by that, I do feel that I should keep up to date on the events, don't you?
Obnoxious? Why, you certainly know how to charm a person, don't you?
And I do believe that you're not exactly being reasonable in your attitude. It's not as though I was insulting you or anything, and yet not only am I called a 'grammar Nazi' (incorrectly; it was a spelling error, not a grammatical error) but you also call me 'obnoxious'!
Frankly, I don't believe that you are behaving in a nice, polite or even civilized manner.

*ruffles feathers*

The Rt. Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, OBE, MBE, Lord Chancellor and Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)

Using the find text function of Internet Explorer (I normally use Firefox) I have determined that there has not been a single 'wot' from the Lord Sah Gurguvungunit. I may use a slight NBIP persona and thus may use them but that is not the point, nor do I apologise for doing so.
Check your facts before you speak.

The Rt. Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, OBE, MBE, Lord Chancellor and Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)

Peace and prosperity under the rule of someone else is worse is worse than civil war?

You really think that?

A) What civil war? When these people weren't grouped into arbitrary nations, there WAS no civil war, because they had their own nations.

B) Self Determination trumps all.

C) Peace at gunpoint is not peace.

As a clarification:

If you aren't Gurglewhateverhisnameis, I'm not debating with you. I'm not going to play a game of 4 or 5 against 1. I have neither the time nor the energy to do so.

Sorry, KSP. I was away for several days visiting family, and it seems as though various members of the NBIP stepped in during my absence. Ilaer is correct, I designated him my second (on the NBIP thread, which is IC) for this 'duel'. If you find the NBIP persona irritating, congratulations. I don't particularly care.

I stand by what Yootopia and Ilaer said after a cursory reading, but I reserve the right to distance myself from what they have said at a later date, as it were (essentially, when I have time to read it all carefully, history texts in hand).

To your last post.

A)
No, it would be a non-civil war, which is just as bad. Before you say that it isn't, I would suggest that you take a long, hard look at nations such as WWI France or postwar Germany. On the other hand, take a look at the postbellum USA, which reached new heights of technological and industrial strength after a few years.

B)
North Korea's state of self-determination is better for it than if it were incorporated into South Korea? Hawai'i would be better off as a sovereign state? Don't be silly. Self determination can be better, it can be worse.

C)
Peace at gunpoint is very much peace. Take, again, postwar Germany. It was an occupied state, controlled by either the USA/British/Free French or the USSR. Both sides, at first, controlled the nation by force of arms, and nothing else. The people of Germany dealt with it, they rebuilt their nation and Germany is one of the most wealthy nations in Western Europe today. If the peace is abided by, the gunpoint is removed. It's not as nice or warm or fuzzy as peace without gunpoint, but it works.

Much of it is based off of the racist conclusion that by brining the "White man's way" to other peoples they were imrpoved.
I am going to go out on a limb here-- specifically, I'm not sure if I can defend this position. But whatever, why not. All in fun, right?

Yes, there was racism. But the empires did do away with some truly awful practises. For example, the aforementioned 'suttee', the incorrect name for anumarana, a Hindu practise by which the widow of a dead man would throw herself on his funeral pyre. According to Niall Ferguson in Empire, 7,941 women died in this manner between 1813 and 1825. That's 661.75 women per year. It was condemned by leading Hindu scholars at the time as being contrary to Hindu beliefs, but the practise went on, especially in rural places.

It was hardly their choice. Quoting again from Ferguson, who quotes an unnamed "British officer present at the event",

[...] a woman named Radhabyee fled twice from the burning pyre on which her husband's corpse lay. [...] The first time she ran out of the fire she was only burned on her legs. Indeed, she would have survived had she not been forced back on the pyre by three men, who flung wood on top of her in order to keep her there[...]. (144)

And then there were the Aztecs, who determined human sacrifice by something like a basketball game. The losing team would die. Returning again to India, we have female infanticide, most common in the northwest. Generally high-class families didn't want to pay the eventual cost of a dowry for their daughters, so they killed them when they were infants. There was the more dubious case of the thagi, a supposed sect of assassin-priests who killed for sport. There exist court documents in which defendants claim to be thagi, but many modern scholars have suggested that the rash of murders was an increase in highway robbery during transitional periods between native and British rule.

Not to harp, but I rather think that cultural traditions ought to take second-place to the preservation of human life, especially in cases when those who die aren't willing victims (such as in anumarana).

In full so far as necessity is concerned. Obviously, no class can adress every small detail, since they last only a year, but classes adressed the important part.
Necessity? Who, or what, defines necessity? You say that your classes addressed the 'important part'. I take that to mean (as seems implied) that your classes addressed the anti-'imperialist' modernist viewpoint. Guess what? My classes have addressed the same. Is that really different from the classical history setup, in which the 'dead white man's' viewpoint was represented to the exclusion of all others? I would think not. It's just being sympathetic to the other guy, which to us seems like being even-handed. It isn't.

@Gurguvungunit and KSP

If you want a private debate/argument, then hold it elsewhere (I suggest e-mail). This is a public forum and we are entitled to comment as and when we wish (within the general rules of the forum of course).

@Gurguvungunit

In terms of the legacy left to the sub continent in civil engineering, then it can be argued that the colonization by the British was beneficial, but only if you are making your evaluation from the perspective of a 20th century Western European culture.

What happened to the millenial culture that was pre-existent in the sub continent? It was fatally damaged by the imposition (by force - at gun point) of a foreign culture.

@ KSP

Stop with the personal attacks and emotive arguments if you want to achieve anything here. Caling people racist and arrogant does not advance your case one iota.

The proposition that the British Raj was established for the purposes of slavery is fundamentally wrong. It was established to exploit the resources of the sub continent, but these resources did not include the local population. The power structure that was used was one that had existed there for centuries, with the only changes ocurring at the top of the power pyramid. Your insistence that slavery was the root cause of all imperialism is blind obedience to a faulty piece of dogma. It was the root cause of the initial imperialist expansion into West Africa (later being supplanted by resources such as ivory and gold), but it was no factor at all in the colonization of the sub continent and South East Asia.

@AB
I realize that I won't be getting a truly private argument here; and I'm pretty much okay with that. As far as other people commenting, feel free. I only request that you don't, and that only because this is a 'duel' between KSP and myself as an NBIP representative.

Think of it as a political debate-- the kind that US candidates hold prior to elections. Only this one came... after.

What happened to the millenial culture that was pre-existent in the sub continent? It was fatally damaged by the imposition (by force - at gun point) of a foreign culture.

But, does it matter? As far as concrete benefits are concerned (and they concern all people, not just Western Europeans)-- viz. water, public safety, transportation, medicine and the like, the British Raj was the single best thing that ever happened to India. Much of what made India a successful state after the end of the Raj was built by Britain during the Imperial years. The rail lines that crisscrossed the subcontinent? British. The vaccinations and the cleaning of tainted water? British, with the help of the mixed-race ICS. The crackdown on crime, organized and otherwise? Indian Army, British Army and the East India Company at different points throughout history (not listed chronologically). These are all quantifiable examples of why the Raj was a good thing.

On the other hand, how do we quantify culture? Yes, culture is nice. But today's most powerful nation (America) has no real culture, just consumerism. It doesn't seem to stop the USA from doing... pretty much whatever the hell it wants. It doesn't stop the USA from making fantastic piles of money every day. It doesn't stop the USA from giving its people amongst the highest standards of living in the world, and it doesn't stop the USA from being the centre for scientific and technological advancement.

I don't ignore his point, I just point out that it is descended from an invalid form of racist logic that assumes that peace under the slaver's whip is better than the smaller wars that happened prior to the colonial age.

Slavers whip will have to be elaborated upon

You will need to demonstrate precisiely how and in what way the British were overly opressive.