I have just read Neil Ferguson's controversial book Empire, where he is rather pro-Empire and says that Britain made the modern world. Do you agree with him and say some empires do bring some good, or is all colonialism evil?
Printable View
I have just read Neil Ferguson's controversial book Empire, where he is rather pro-Empire and says that Britain made the modern world. Do you agree with him and say some empires do bring some good, or is all colonialism evil?
.
No GAH, no vote! :rtwno:
.
Good! Too bad it was dis-membered...
Perhaps we could have taken over the world, and make World Peace under the British crown.
As most things in life and in the world past and present... it brought both good and evil
I prefer a empire that integrates all conquered regions properly over any compilation of nation states. My problem with the european colonial empires is that the people of europe had seen themselfs as superior compared to the native people of the colonies. Also this colonial empires have done a very bad job to integrate the new colonies into the motherland. Even the territories mainly populated by people of british seperated over the time.
Long Live Imperialism!! Rule Brittania!! Personally, i think that the British Empire was an incredibly good thing. After all, we gave those countries hospitals, roads, schools and once we left, they didn't have a clue how to run it all, and now look were they are. Africa used to be a fairly rich continent under the European powers, and now look at it. Poorest continent on Earth.
A one, a two, a three : "Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the Free........."
How shall we extol thee, who are born of thee?"
Hurrah for patriotism!! Hurrah for Britain!! Time for us to hijack this thread, and turn it into a British Imperialist thread!!
Many liberal-apologist and new-world-citizen types might look back aghast at some of the actions Britain carried out as an Empire, but think on this: without the British Empire, both Napoleon and Hitler, the two worst dictators ever, could and would have taken over the world.......
Britain did make the modern world. Gave secular justice and abolished slavery. Made English an important language too.
Africa is mess for lots of reasons, not just the old empires, but also how they were treated during the Cold War.
I can find a whole lot of dictator worst than Napolean. The fact he wanted to invade UK doesn't make him the worst dictator ever.
Back on topic, I think that, although they were not that bad when they were still running, Colonial Empire are largely responsibles for the happening in Asia and Africa.
IMHO, Africa would be a better place without colonialism.
I know this is impopular, but I think that in a sense Britain and France 'made' the entire modern world by laying the intellectual, physical and institutional groundwork for the dominant establishments, values, knowledge, and economic principles that govern us today, from banking and postmodern philosophy through space exploration and genetics. You'll forgive me for waxing epic at this late hour, but Europe is indeed the cradle of civilisation. And eighteenth century Britain and France are the spatio-temporal navel of mankind. Everything that came before was a mere prelude, everything that came afterwards was a mere sequel. Now hang me.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
Well Imperialism is great! (provided I'm the emperor of course :sneaky:)
Otherwise I vote for an imaginery GAH! large enough to devour the Earth. ~D
Nobly diplomatic of you m'lord Adrian II but, IMHO, a tad too positive about the French side of things.
Oh, and I know that there were a few worse dictators than Napoleon. Stalin for one! But I picked Boney and Hitler because, unlike Stalin and some others, Napoleon and Hitler tried to take over the World - and I'm only talking in terms of true World-politics of the kind seen during the development and duration of the British Empire, and the fact that at times we stood alone against these two regimes.
As to French imperial asperations, I read somewhere that the main reason the British Empire succeeded and the French did not, was because the British inherited and ever afterwards built on the Dutch East India Company trader-system approach and most British colonies made a profit and attracted people to them. By contrast the French approach was primarily about territorial gain and hardly any were successful in business terms, nor attractive to emigrants.
That's not to say I think the British Empire was all good. If there's one distasteful "event of Empire" I would pick out of our past it would be when, after defeating the Boers in South Africa, we then gave them hegemony over the country and the blacks therein - blacks who had fought freely for us (and for the liberty they'd enjoyed with us at that time) - when we knew damn well that the Boers were a deeply racist group. We did the biggest ever dirty, when we could have ensured equality :shame:
Pax Romana...
You've never stood alone against a strategic opponent since 1066. And the funny thing is around 1800 you had more in common with Napoleon than with the Russian, Spanish, Italian and German allies with whom you fought him.Quote:
Originally Posted by streety
European colonial or imperialist ventures in the nineteenth century were hardly profitable at all. They were considered a strategic necessity, not an economic one, and trade did not happily follow the flag anywhere. The Dutch for instance have mostly lost money on their West Indies possessions, though the profits of the slave trade through these possessions more than made up for the loss. The whole history of western imperialism has been rewritten ten times to incorporate the apparent political, strategic and economic inconsistencies that transpired during research. I don't pretend to have a last word on any historic development of such magnitude, but I always thought that between the Foreign Legion in Africa and the Michelin rubber plantations in Indo-China the French colonies attracted a decent number of emigrants.Quote:
By contrast the French approach was primarily about territorial gain and hardly any were successful in business terms, nor attractive to emigrants.
Well, the picture certainly isn't a simple one, Adrian II, I'd readily agree. But I'd beg to differ that we ever had more in common with Napoleon than his other opponents. :charge:
And though we had several friends to defeat the likes of Napoleon and Hitler, we were also at times "effectively alone" against them. And my main point being that without the British Empire, either or both Napoleon's or Hitler's regimes could and probably would have taken over the World, or a big chunk thereof. BTW, I take it you're joking somewhat about the Spanish and Italian's help in either of those situations! Pretty useless allies -when they weren't actually on the other side - where they weren't much use there either....
And as to the Russians and Germans: even the Russians had an effective agreement with Hitler to carve up Eastern Europe, and only entered the war a couple of years later when Hitler invaded them. And as to the Germans, well, the Prussians helped crucially at Waterloo, but then they ganged up all the other german states into one country and gave us Hitler, which sort of cancels things out..... :wry:
Oh and BTW, I was talking about the Dutch East India Company, which we inherited through the House of Orange in 1688, not the Dutch West Indies, and we made plenty of money thank you, but ploughed a lot of it into building those countries up too.
As to other Empires - well Sapi, all the Romans ever did was give us pizzas, central heating and orgies. I mean, what use is that? We Brits gave the World tea, er, from India...... ~D
Rule Britannia :rtwyes:
That probably is the one bad thing the British Empire did for Africa and the world. We could have ensured equality for the South African people, but consined (sp?) them to years of Apartheid and racism.Quote:
If there's one distasteful "event of Empire" I would pick out of our past it would be when, after defeating the Boers in South Africa, we then gave them hegemony over the country and the blacks therein - blacks who had fought freely for us (and for the liberty they'd enjoyed with us at that time) - when we knew damn well that the Boers were a deeply racist group. We did the biggest ever dirty, when we could have ensured equality
good for the Empire, bad for those conquered
I would recommend that you make a serious comparison. Or would you rather parrot the nineteenth century British version of the Napoleonic Era?Quote:
Originally Posted by streety
Of course not, how clumsy of me. :mellow:
Sorry Adrian II, in my joking I was merely trying to make things light-hearted in the face of your own telling ignorance on the subject. Napoleonic France was a dictatorship, Britain one of the most democratic nations of its day. And Britain effectively alone faced Napoleon from 1807 until the Austrians joined us in the Fifth Coalition in April 1809. However, Austria, for its part, lost its campaigns, and Napoleonic France reached its greatest extent in 1810. And then it wasn't until the start of the Sixth Coalition in 1812 that the British once again had more significant help.
As to Hitler, if you read up on the general situation following the fall of France in June 1940, you'll likely soon read that at that time the British Empire was effectively alone against the Nazis.
I will make no further direct, open responses to your comments if they are of a seriously insulting nature.
My personal opinon is that the British empire was the biggest smash & grab raid in history. Just look in any English museum.
If I remember correctly one of the biggest jewels in the crown jewels was plundered from the Punjab.
I doubt anyone who wasn't British would say the British Empire was a good thing. Theres better ways to "help build up a country" than marching in and killing anyone who tries to stop you.
Yes, well, I never said we were perfect..... Though we didn't kill everyone, and I think everyone who isn't British may be just a bit jealous? I'm fully aware of our "warts and all" history, and I'd say that we Brits are generally far more concious of our own past failings than most any other nation is. And if I had to sumarize the British Empire, I would simply say that it was the least-evil Empire that ever existed. ~;)
Yes indeed Mikeus, when I review our Empire's chequered history, I think there is actually much more to be proud of than most modern revisionists would like us to accept (and I'm not just talking about Hitler, Napoleon or teabags). But that South Africa event is one I find totally awful. There were reasons, such as a belief that the Boers would be better redeveloping the country's economy, and a heavy World opinion, favouring the romantic (if racist) underdog, feeling that we'd been hard on the Boers and needing to repair, or something pathetic like that. So, despite the prior British promulgation of Ordinance 50 legally introducing "equality for all persons of colour" in 1828 (earlier than most other powers did!) we actually neglected to enshrine that equality for the blacks when the Union of South Africa formed in 1910. And apartheid soon came to exist in place (long before its formal 1948 introduction). :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar
Oh, regarding my earlier comments on the Napoleonic Wars: in the period from the end of the 4th Coalition (July 1807) until the start of the Sixth (1812), the period when Britain stood alone was actually "only" half a year, until the outbreak of the Peninsular War in 1808. But it was also effectively fighting alone for long periods twice beforehand: firstly after the collapse of the 1st Coalition (1796) until the formation of the 2nd (1799), and secondly from the end of the Treaty of Amiens (May 1803) until the formation of the 3rd Coalition in 1805. And we mustn't get too land-obsessed, for much of the conflict was at sea of course, pretty much anywhere around the globe. :book:
I think that is a bit exagerated. The constuction of the Empire did not rsult in many large scale battles where thousands upon thousands were killed. Instead the political situation was exploited so that any prince/warlord/king who tried to shift the balance of power in his favour was taken and another candidate was put in his the fomer king's place. That was why even though Victoria was Empress of India there were still many maharajahs who were the albeit puppet rulers of their domain. The Empire was not made when the King decided "I want to rule an empire" and gathered his army to go off and conquer the world. Of course the first concern was not the welfare of the state The East India Company was conquering. Cash was the thing which drove it. Yet if a proper infrastructure, an excellent civil service and written helped in the governance of the country, then that was done. Of course it made mistakes. No empire doesn't. Yet the jewel you speak of was probably given by a maharajah grateful for the fact that his head was not cut off and his bodies thrown do the dogs, as he would expect most conquerors to behave. Instead he hung on to some of the privileges of being ruler, such as a palace and a title, without any of the responsabilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by RabidGibbon
It's also why when there was a separate Moghul Emperor of India, we ruled it. We made people think that they were still ruling themselves.
And which, pray, were the advanced democracies Britain sided with in that war? I think you better look again at my words: I said Britain had more in common with its foe than with its allies. And it didn't beat Napoleon or Hitler.Quote:
Originally Posted by streety
They provoked the opposition of most of the modern world of their days, of which Britain was a part in both cases. A major part around 1800, a minor part after 1940. But it's the Russians wot did both your enemies in. Can't be helped.Quote:
And my main point being that without the British Empire, either or both Napoleon's or Hitler's regimes could and probably would have taken over the World, or a big chunk thereof.
The British empire stole much of ideas and initiatives from other nations. Like all good empire builders, such as that of the Romans (who stole much, from military organisation to religious beliefs, from the Greeks) the Brits took the ideas from other nations and improved on them.
They 'borrowed' (no pun intended) the idea of banking from the Dutch - of the government selling bonds to public and thus having a secure financial basis from which to raise armies (and navies). This is one of the reasons for British naval superiority, sound financial footing led to a military increase at no great long-term cost to the government.
In conclusion, a shrewd nation looks at the other nations and takes and improves anything which it feels is useful. This seems to be a reoccuring theme.
Whether the empre was 'good' or 'bad' depends what you would define as these terms. The Spanish empre comitted as many attrocities in South America as any, but then the civilisations before them (the Aztecs especially) cut out the still beating heart of a human to sacrifice it to the sun-god. Is that equally as humane as what the Spanish brought? Was it a matter of bringing them brick houses, catholocism and 'civilisation'? Or was it a thirst for gold and trade lanes to other continents?
Ultimately, whether an empire was 'good' or 'bad' depends on weighing up what is gained to the imperial nation, against what the subjected nation loses. In this case, the Spanish gained the famed 'El Dorado', gold and silver, exotic animals, 'indian' slaves and large amount of territory. The subject populations gained European diseases, famine, war and the authority of a government on the other side of the Atlantic. Is that a fair swap? ~:confused:
Well guys,
I believe EVERY empire is, on the whole, a good thing for the colonial power and a very bad thing for those under control and opression.
~D