NationStates Jolt Archive

So what are the British troops doing then?
Teaching kids martial arts, obviously. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWJndtug4j0)

Bombing big brown children, but we don't shoot our own.

That's what everyone's doing in Iraq, is bombing little brown children. Don't single out the Americans.

There's a lot more to racism than slavery. Hell, read anything by Rudyard Kipling and you understand the British Empire in its entirety.
Everyone was racist back then. And it would still take a long time. Their views were pretty modern compared to other powers.

I was refuting your remark that "If the US hadn't pressured them, nothing at all would have changed." The US was ages beyond Europe on this point. You don't have to be a American-basher to know that. I don't want to take part in always pointing fingers to the US, but your observation was so wrong that it urged me to respond.

So, of the possible alternatives from the last 100 years or so, do you think any other overlord would have been preferable?
What about the Japanese?

I was refuting your remark that "If the US hadn't pressured them, nothing at all would have changed."
I was talking about post-WWII, when the US had its big campaign against imperialism for a decade or so (before they started themselves).

It was their political and economic pressure which played such a major part in Britain giving up most of its former colonies and global aspirations. The Suez crisis comes to mind as a major event.

It was a useful concept, and I dare say that most of the ruling classes genuinely believed in them. So I don't really see why the idea would disappear if the Empire hadn't been destroyed by outside influences like WWII and the subsequent pressure from the US.

Because it largely had disappeared by WW2 anyway. Frankly, there's no more reason to suspect it would continue; there had already been great victories in civil rights for women by WW2 in the Empire despite that the ruling classes genuinely believed they were inferior. Why would there not be a corresponding move towards civil rights for other races just as was seen in America?

Why would there not be a corresponding move towards civil rights for other races just as was seen in America?
I suppose this is all alternative history, so we could argue for days, but I think the onus would be on you to show why it would change, rather than for me to change why it wouldn't.

The US didn't need the racism to exist. It wasn't as central to its existence as the opposing argument, mainly from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which had equality and rights written in pretty big letters.

To the Empire the idea of bringing civilisation to a world of savages was absolutely central. It couldn't have simply been abandoned, and I don't think it was even after WWII (though with more opposition around, real-life political and power-related arguments were made more often than for example in Victorian times). I think South Africa would be a good example of the British Empire having been allowed to continue to exist. More and more science in the world leading to more and more scientific racism, leading to more and more preventing the "races" to mix and more segregation.

I suppose this is all alternative history, so we could argue for days, but I think the onus would be on you to show why it would change, rather than for me to change why it wouldn't.

No, the onus would be on you to show why it would not follow the same path the US did regarding civil rights movements despite abolishing slavery long before the US did.

The US didn't need the racism to exist. It wasn't as central to its existence as the opposing argument, mainly from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which had equality and rights written in pretty big letters.

That would be the same Constitution under which women couldn't vote, right? Under your argument, it's ridiculous that the US would ever allow women to vote.

To the Empire the idea of bringing civilisation to a world of savages was absolutely central.

No, it's not. It's just what they told themselves they were doing when they annexed the latest resource-rich nation with a massively inferior technological base and military which never stood a hope in hell of stopping them. The British Empire was about gold and jewels and steel and coal, and using the latter two to get the former two.

No, the onus would be on you to show why it would not follow the same path the US did regarding civil rights movements despite abolishing slavery long before the US did.
Because it is not the same country. The US had its race issues at home, Britain had them overseas.

Then there is South Africa's Apartheid and Australia's "White Australia" policy to serve as examples of the mindset continuing, resources or not. They all ended eventually, but that was in a situation very different from one had the Empire still existed.

Under your argument, it's ridiculous that the US would ever allow women to vote.
I don't think that follows at all.

But universal suffrage is a good example of what I mean to say, actually. There was some social pressure (and it should be noted that despite inequalities, a woman would still have had more opportunity to put her opinion out there than some black guy in the colonies) for it to change, but the international example also played a big part in my opinion. After for example New Zealand allowed women to vote it became easier for women in Australia or the US to argue for it, because the world had indeed not ended in NZ. It needed that international competition/pressure to push things over the edge in many countries.

Had the Empire remained the dominant world power, where would the push for change have come from? There would have been no protesting wives in the streets to allow other races a fair go, and no significant examples of racial equality to be presented. Every form of protest in the colonies was met with overwhelming force and crushed.

The British Empire was about gold and jewels and steel and coal, and using the latter two to get the former two.
I think we're talking about two different times here. You're talking the early Empire, when it was still expanding and it was really about capturing resources. I'm talking the heyday during Victoria's reign, when they already had all the resources they really needed, and they were exporting their way of life to the colonies and establishing these massively segregated societies everywhere.

I was talking about post-WWII, when the US had its big campaign against imperialism for a decade or so (before they started themselves).

It was their political and economic pressure which played such a major part in Britain giving up most of its former colonies and global aspirations. The Suez crisis comes to mind as a major event.
Ah, okay.

Because it is not the same country. The US had its race issues at home, Britain had them overseas.

And how did those people get to the US? Why, the same way they got to England. You think there were no black people in England? The US established itself through hideous racist genocide against the natives, through both direct attacks and by doing their level best to obliterate their way of life. It went on to declare that all men were created equal while still allowing de facto slavery, which only ended after one of the most devastating civil wars in terms of percentage of population killed in history.

If we go from this start, how do we arrive at the nation that established full civil rights for all men regardless of race? Is it therefore in any way valid to claim that the British Empire would have always remained racist had it lasted? After all, there would still have been an America, and it would still have been an incredibly powerful entity due to the sheer amount of resources it commanded. If the evil British really need the USA as a shining light to show them the error of their ways, that's no obstacle.

After for example New Zealand allowed women to vote it became easier for women in Australia or the US to argue for it, because the world had indeed not ended in NZ. It needed that international competition/pressure to push things over the edge in many countries.

Had the Empire remained the dominant world power, where would the push for change have come from?

NZ and Australia were at the time part of the British Empire. So, the Empire can't do it, but the Empire can lead the way? Do you not see a slight problem here? And again, America wouldn't cease to exist just because the Empire hadn't collapsed.

I think we're talking about two different times here. You're talking the early Empire, when it was still expanding and it was really about capturing resources.

It was never not about capturing resources. Making the local society more like British society was done with the goal of making the nations easier to administrate so that fewer resources would be needed to do so in the long run. Empires are about resources and power, and making the world a better place for the people in charge.

In another thread, The Potato Factory said that the world sucks and suggested this was because the allies won WW2. [Edit: He says he meant WW1.]

The USA is our current overlord. Not real wonderful but I think it could be worse.

So, of the possible alternatives from the last 100 years or so, do you think any other overlord would have been preferable?

Poll coming.

I think the problem is in people making ridiculous statements like "The USA is our current overlord."

I think the problem is in people making ridiculous statements like "The USA is our current overlord."

Sadly it is not a ridiculous statement.

Sadly it is not a ridiculous statement.

Sadly, people accept that as true. I don't see France, or Germany, or Russia particularly kowtowing to the US. I certainly don't see North Korea or Iran or Syria going along either.

If the UK chooses to follow along after the US, then vote the bums out of office.

GMC seems to have tackled most arguments on the matter, but regardless:

The only reason the racism that Britain stood for ended was that their Empire ended.
Hardly. I would think that WW II provided an extremely convincing reason to end racism on a scientific level. The termination of the Empire did lead to many things, but the end of racism was far more the child of a shift in ideology.

If the US hadn't pressured them, nothing at all would have changed. We'd still be talking about the scientifically proven inferiority of the Black man. Considering that the entire justification for the Empire in Victorian times was to educate and lead the poor children of the wrong skin colour, I don't think the Empire could have existed without racism.
The White Man's Burden? No, the Empire could exist. It would simply shift the emphasis from race to cultural development, which does differ between nations (especially as science weakened the claims such racism had to make). And as for the US, we are talking about a country that itself was racist and actively practised things such as segregation. How did the US change? Internal dymanics, of course. The same could've occured in the Empire itself, starting from England. Instability is not good for trade. Either way, even if the Empire had gone on the US would still have held a powerful role in world politics, given its large internal economy and wealth, and thus could affect it.

Indeed, alternative history is pretty much an exercise in futility. But there is no reason to assume a priori that the Empire would've gone on supporting scientific racism indefinitely. What might have differed is the absence of white guilt.

I'd take Rozarri--- err, the European Union.

*is loving the poll hack*

*is loving the poll hack*

What poll hack?

>.>

<.<

a caliphate wouldn't be so bad.

a caliphate wouldn't be so bad.

Bring it on.

God, no. Social injustice, no women's rights, extreme militarism, rigid structures... I'd personally hate that.
Social injustice? Bismarck set up the world's first welfare programmes, didn't he?

And how did those people get to the US? Why, the same way they got to England. You think there were no black people in England?
Nothing like the number of women in England, I'd dare say.

Is it therefore in any way valid to claim that the British Empire would have always remained racist had it lasted?
It would not nearly be as big a jump as claiming that it would somehow have changed.

After all, there would still have been an America, and it would still have been an incredibly powerful entity due to the sheer amount of resources it commanded.
See, I'm assuming the US away, because I don't think a modern, non-isolationist US and a British Empire could coexist. So I'm assuming the US remains isolationist and doesn't care about Britain.

NZ and Australia were at the time part of the British Empire.
In name only. The Australian States had their own constitutions already, they were finalising preparations to form an independent commonwealth. NZ took a little bit longer, but had been taking part in the same conferences and preparations.

Hardly. I would think that WW II provided an extremely convincing reason to end racism on a scientific level. The termination of the Empire did lead to many things, but the end of racism was far more the child of a shift in ideology.
If WWII happened, the British Empire wouldn't exist anymore, remember.

And besides, it didn't end racism in South Africa, did it.

It would simply shift the emphasis from race to cultural development, which does differ between nations (especially as science weakened the claims such racism had to make).
Why?

And do you really think that science would stop the pseudoscience required to prove the need for keeping people below you socially, politically and economically? It's even still around today.

The same could've occured in the Empire itself, starting from England.
Yes, but Britain is not the same as the British colonies. There were a few people of different ethnicity in Britain proper, but most were a long way away. And when those people rebelled or asked for more rights, they got themselves shot. I don't really see why the rulers would suddenly change the way they approach dissent in the colonies.

Instability is not good for trade.
Hence overwhelming force being used to quell resistance. Maybe Churchill-style, with poison gas.

But there is no reason to assume a priori that the Empire would've gone on supporting scientific racism indefinitely.
I'm not. I just assume that it would have gone on as it did, and still wait for someone to make a good case that somehow tells me why the UK would have gone like the US, rather than like its various colonies when they gained independence. Aboriginal Australians weren't considered humans by law until 1963. Terra Nullius wasn't abandoned until 1992. And you know quite well what was going on in South Africa.

Does this description sound like the hell that was Iraq under Saddim's rule? I don't think so.

Wikipedia is describing a democratic republic there.

MerriamWebster defines republic as follows

1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
2 : a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>
3 : a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia

What do you think the "R" in USSR stood for? Why do you think the People's Republic of China calls itself republic?
Iraq was a republic, and is now a hellhole indeed.

Social injustice? Bismarck set up the world's first welfare programmes, didn't he?

Bismark got sacked.

I support Isreal because they are Gods chosen people.
That's not why the US Government supports them.

I am a Christian and I support Israel's existence. But we must never be uncritical of Israel just because they are Jews. They are not immune from doing evil. Why do so many of you American Christians look upon Jews as theological allies? They don't even agree with the central premise of our religion.

Too harsh on the Nazi's, you must be kidding.
Yes, unfortunately people are insufficiently harsh on the Japanese and Soviet Union.

One differance though, I really do care about other people, I'm not so sure others here can say that. Sometimes it seems like Americans are everyone elses dart board and thats not a good feeling.
You think it's bad being a proverbial dartboard? How about being Iraqi and feeling the burning and explosions of being very much a real "dartboard".

Care about other people? By bombing them I suppose. American conservatives as a whole have not a compassionate bone in their bodies.

Israel has as much right to exist as any of the Arab countries, and many of the present Arab countries have no history of exisitance prior to the 20th century, so Maybe Israel has more right since their history of existance is over 2000 years old.
Yes, I always am amused by this argument "they have no right to exist, they're on Arab land!" Yes, they take up some 1% of 'Arab land', how terrible of them. :rolleyes:

Those people in Iraq who made good money or owned they're own businesses where obviousley idiots. What are poor people for if not cannon fodder. And the Hispanics will soon own America anyway. I heard Bush speaking spanish. That smooth latin lover that he is.
I like you.

You are all about starting trouble aren't you?
Says you who writes silly arguments then pulls the "pity me!" card.

after having read every post untill now i have to agree with putting the australian cricket team in charge of the world, providing that it includes past players as we would need boony to be president/emperor, with merv hughes as his vice pres/primeminster.

what do you think boonytopia?

after having read every post untill now i have to agree with putting the australian cricket team in charge of the world, providing that it includes past players as we would need boony to be president/emperor, with merv hughes as his vice pres/primeminster.

what do you think boonytopia?

Having not read any but the first three or four and this one, and knowing next to nothing about cricket but a fair bit about Oz, I'll take that option as well.

Why the hell is Japan not an option?

Think about it. We would have cars without shitty leather seats, Dakara soft drinks for everyone, and Pachinko machines as far as the eye can see!

Social injustice? Bismarck set up the world's first welfare programmes, didn't he?

Yeah, some believe it's the inspiration for the latter Scandinavian state welfare systems we see today, his healthcare system was very good also.

Why the hell is Japan not an option?

Think about it. We would have cars without shitty leather seats, Dakara soft drinks for everyone, and Pachinko machines as far as the eye can see!

My apologies. Japan would have been a better option than the Ottoman Empire.

I think the problem is in people making ridiculous statements like "The USA is our current overlord."

It was intended to provoke a response. Perhaps a milder way to put it would have been, "The USA is the most powerful nation on earth."

To repeat, one of the reasons for the poll was to demonstrate that the world could do a lot worse than have the USA as the #1 superpower.

Why the hell is Japan not an option?

Think about it. We would have cars without shitty leather seats, Dakara soft drinks for everyone, and Pachinko machines as far as the eye can see!

You left out one of the best reasons - a beer vending machine on every corner! :)

(OTOH, it'd also mean ugly urbanization and a chikan on every train. :()

It was intended to provoke a response. Perhaps a milder way to put it would have been, "The USA is the most powerful nation on earth."

To repeat, one of the reasons for the poll was to demonstrate that the world could do a lot worse than have the USA as the #1 superpower.

Indeed, indeed.