Commonwealth 1 France 0

The British Empire was so wicked and evil that a former colony of a 'rival' empire asks to be admitted to the Commonwealth.

Quote:

---

Paul Kagame, the Rwandan President, says that his country will cement its bitter divorce from France and the French-speaking world, which he holds responsible for the 1994 slaughter of up to one million of his countrymen, by joining the Commonwealth later year.

“There are many benefits for us in joining the Commonwealth — cultural, economic, political,” he told The Times.

Mr Kagame has been invited to attend the next Commonwealth summit as an observer. “I hope they will then approve our membership. I am looking forward to it.”

---

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1392750.ece

On a serious note. If what Mr. Kagame says is true about our neighbours to the south, the EU should look closely into what the French have been up to.

Quote:

---

“The French were obsessed by language,” he said. “I remember when I was invited to Paris in 1992 as part of a peace initiative they were angry I could not talk French.

“That night security agents burst into my hotel room and ‘detained me’, even though I was a guest invited by them.”

---

Give it up fellas. French stopped being the Lingua Franca hundreds of years ago.

Maybe it helps if they say $orry, but of course it isn't about all that

Surley you are not implying anything are you?:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Surley you are not implying anything are you?:inquisitive:

---

Me nah.

But it isn't french fault that the tutsi's were the elite, and yes spoke french, and were frenchminded. Ok, maybe a tiny little bit. Hutu's kill tutsi's, and somehow France is to blame, of course.

Rwanda was a German colony first, then a Belgium one ruled by a League of Nations mandate. Never a French one.

France did mess up in the early nineties in Rwanda. What a peculiar mixture of stupidity, malice and neo-colonialism that was.

Of course, unlike the Francophony, the Commonwealth is not at all about bringing and keeping third world countries into any sphere of influence.
Nor would any English speaking country ever even consider supporting any side or dictator in the thirld world to increase their own influence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luigi VI di Fatlington

Nor would any English speaking country ever even consider supporting any side or dictator in the thirld world to increase their own influence.

---

God forbid. :shame:

Although I seriously doubt that they would support a genocide just to keep alive the English language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luigi VI di Fatlington

Rwanda was a German colony first, then a Belgium one ruled by a League of Nations mandate. Never a French one.

---

:yes: This shows once again why British education is going down the drain.

The Rwandan Tutsi elite spoke French because they were educated by French-speaking priests from Belgium (Wallonia). In the 1960 and 1994 massacres of Tutsi, Rwandan and Belgian Catholic clerics were haevily implicated on the Hutu side and some of them are prosecuted on genocide charges. The Tutsi fled to neighbouring English-speaking countries who used them to infiltrate and carry out guerilla operations in Rwanda. That is how they came to speak English.

When the French last tried to intervene in the Great Lakes region (Operation Turquoise) to end the worst excesses in and around Zaire, they made some huge mistakes and were consequenty blamed by the English-speaking former colonies in central Africa for everything that went wrong. Kinda like the Americans getting the blame for everything that goes wrong in the Arab world.

Quote:

---

This shows once again why British education is going down the drain.

---

As I left school in 1976 I doubt that applies to moi. :smash:

Can they play cricket?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Can they play cricket?

---

Blimey aint you lot had enough of torturing the rest of the cricketing world? :sweatdrop:

What exactly is the function of the commonwealth other than a loose association of English speeking countries that often come together to beat us Brits at every sport we can think of?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

As I left school in 1976 I doubt that applies to moi. :smash:

---

That must have been the year when the rot set in. :brood:

J/j of course. I thought a little quid pro quo couldn't hurt. And yes, the French completely blew Turquoise because it was centred on the notion of their French-speaking African inheritance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithradates

What exactly is the function of the commonwealth other than a loose association of English speeking countries that often come together to beat us Brits at every sport we can think of?

---

The Olympics only takes place once every 4 years. The Commonwealth games allows them to humiliate us while they're waiting for the real games. Some of them go one step further and take up cricket so they can trash us every 2 years instead of 4. The French and Italians have surpassed even that by taking up rugby so they can thrash us yearly.

The Commonwealth of Nations: A forum where you can bash the Brits as much as you like and the Brits have to grin and bear it. I'm surprised the French haven't joined.

Quote:

---

The Commonwealth of Nations: A forum where you can bash the Brits as much as you like and the Brits have to grin and bear it. I'm surprised the French haven't joined.

---

No need, we're both in the EU...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I seriously doubt that they would support a genocide just to keep alive the English language.

---

Yes, genocide of two continents, human displacements, stimulated mass migration and oppression from Cork to Calcutta played no part in making English the world's lingua franca. ~;)

There is however one thing that bugs me about French linguistic policy though. And that is that they have got it all backwards for three centuries now. First you should impose your economic power, and then they'll take over your language and culture. Language follows power. It's not the other way round like we think. Those grandmasters of imperialism the Anglo-saxons have understood this mechanism better. Or maybe they're simply more practical, less concerned with prestige, pomp and other frenchities.

Anyway, good luck with Ruanda, you can have it. Just don't mention human rights to them - or they'll swap you in turn for the Chinese. Africa has the luxury of choice nowadays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luigi VI di Fatlington

Or maybe they're simply more practical, less concerned with prestige, pomp and other frenchities.

---

We try, damnit! :shame:

So could someone inform me as to what the Commonwealth acctually does? I've always been a little hazy on the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luigi VI di Fatlington

Anyway, good luck with Ruanda, you can have it. Just don't mention human rights to them - or they'll swap you in turn for the Chinese. Africa has the luxury of choice nowadays.

---

~D :yes:

We were a trading race, everything came from wanting to make money. Being able to communicate with the people who are buying your goods was a major incentive.

I didn't know that the British caused the potato famine.

Gaining this benighted little hole of a Despot Republic is hardly regaining Brittany. Who cares where or what they do?

The Commonwealth was supposed to join countries with a common join in Heritage, and probably to aid in trade and diplomacy.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luigi VI di Fatlington

Yes, genocide of two continents, human displacements, stimulated mass migration and oppression from Cork to Calcutta played no part in making English the world's lingua franca. ~;)

---

2 continents? Australia (Tazmania especially), yes, if you consider it a continent.
Which other continent have you in mind?

More like 5. North america, Asia, Europe, Oceania, and Africa.

Africa: British rule was FAR better than the rule of the Belgians and the Germans, and the French.

Asia: neutral to positive. Helped many aspects of Indian society (suttee and the Thugs for example). Germans again were renowned for their actions (the Huns)

America: as in the USA: Mainly post independence. Canada seems to have coped without the slaughter. South / Central America is the work of Spanish and Portuguese. Of course if God says to slaughter, that's fine

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm

Which other continent have you in mind?

---

I think the spread of English in North America can to a large extend be attributed to genocide, human displacements and stimulated mass migration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rory

We were a trading race, everything came from wanting to make money.
[...]
I didn't know that the British caused the potato famine.

---

The British didn't cause the potato disease, but they had a hand in the famine. For a start, with a little less fixation on being a trading race, perhaps the British could've repealed the Corn Laws a bit earlier?


Ah, but this is turning into a debate about the British when the topic is failed French neo-colonial policy in Africa. I'll repeat the old saying that France is like the rapist that married its victim and then keeps on raping and violating her. The day she decides to leave, she strangles her. That is what France did in Rwanda, Congo, Algeria and Cameroun. A million deaths each by the hand of either French genocidaires directly or by an indifferent French policy who's sole interest is a mythical French grandeur.
This is what French African policy amounted to, all the way up to 1995. And cursed be Mitterand, that most cynical of all of France's 'republican monarchs', who did to France's foreign prestige what Bush did for America's.
And now, just when a new more human-rights oriented foreign policy, with an emphasis on the interests of Africa has been in place for a decade, Africa is slipping away.
[/rant]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I don't know a good English book about this subject. For those interested I do recommended:

L'inavouable

Patrick de Saint-Exupéry

JE VAIS VOUS RABAISSER AU RANG D'HOMME." Ou vous élever, c'est selon. Je vais attraper votre main et nous allons partir. Quelque part, là-bas, il y a longtemps.

"En Afrique, la France se bat depuis cinquante ans pour conserver son empire." La décolonisation n'a pas été une rupture, juste une étape. Avec le temps, nos dirigeants ont simplement privilégié l'ombre, perfectionnant certaines techniques forgées durant les guerres coloniales : les opérations secrètes, l'enseignement de la "guerre révolutionnaire", cette doctrine de manipulation des foules...

"Au Rwanda, notre politique fut une réussite." Techniquement - je veux dire si l'on se débarrasse de ces concepts encombrants que sont le bien et le mal, l'humain et l'inhumain, l'acceptable et l'inadmissible-, nous fûmes au sommet. La mystification est une figure de la guerre. Nous la pratiquâmes avec une maîtrise qui glace le sang.

"Des soldats de notre pays ont formé, sur ordre, les tueurs du troisième génocide du XXe siècle." Nous leur avons donné des armes, une doctrine, un blanc-seeing. J'ai découvert cette histoire malgré moi, dans les collines rwandaises. Il faisait chaud, c'était l'été. Il faisait beau, c'était magnifique. C'était le temps du génocide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Africa: British rule was FAR better than the rule of the Belgians and the Germans, and the French.

Asia: neutral to positive. Helped many aspects of Indian society (suttee and the Thugs for example). Germans again were renowned for their actions (the Huns)

America: as in the USA: Mainly post independence. Canada seems to have coped without the slaughter. South / Central America is the work of Spanish and Portuguese. Of course if God says to slaughter, that's fine

~:smoking:

---

Sorry, British rule in Africa still stunk, even though their contemporaries stunk more. Asia "neutral to positive"? Laughable. The Americas probably has their best track record, and that is because they were booted out early and the colonists took over their jobs.

Don't get me wrong. I am reaping the rewards of British (and French) colonialism (the Spanish have given me nothing though, that's for the Texans). If I was to decry offensive war for the sake of conquest, it would follow that I would have to leave my home and give it to the indigenous owners. If not, I am a hypocrite. The same can be said of almost anyone, anywhere. Modern nation states are almost all touched with wars of conquest. That being said, I cannot stand it when people try to gloss over their conquests. You cannot hold them to be wrong without decrying your own nation's involvement. There are two options. Affirm that wars of conquest are legitimate or try and gloss over history. The second option is just really weak...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Sorry, British rule in Africa still stunk, even though their contemporaries stunk more. Asia "neutral to positive"? Laughable. The Americas probably has their best track record, and that is because they were booted out early and the colonists took over their jobs.

Don't get me wrong. I am reaping the rewards of British (and French) colonialism (the Spanish have given me nothing though, that's for the Texans). If I was to decry offensive war for the sake of conquest, it would follow that I would have to leave my home and give it to the indigenous owners. If not, I am a hypocrite. The same can be said of almost anyone, anywhere. Modern nation states are almost all touched with wars of conquest. That being said, I cannot stand it when people try to gloss over their conquests. You cannot hold them to be wrong without decrying your own nation's involvement. There are two options. Affirm that wars of conquest are legitimate or try and gloss over history. The second option is just really weak...

---

India and Pakistan did quite well out of it. There was a lot more bloodshed before and after the Raj. Neither country would actually exist without Britain either.

Rule in the USA was no better after independence. Things were a bit more efficient, but the country was still full of slaves and the unfranchised.

Tazmania undoubtably got the worst of it.

Having said that, compared to everyone else Britain did a good job. Lots of countries only have a proper judicial system at all because of the British. There weren't that many massacres, and mostly they were due to incompetant local leaders rather than an overall policy. The dangers of inbreeding and class leading to power. Sigh.

I'm pretty sure the Commonwealth exists to glare harmlessly at Mugabwe for being the most evil ***** currently ruling anywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

India and Pakistan did quite well out of it. There was a lot more bloodshed before and after the Raj. Neither country would actually exist without Britain either.

Rule in the USA was no better after independence. Things were a bit more efficient, but the country was still full of slaves and the unfranchised.

Tazmania undoubtably got the worst of it.

Having said that, compared to everyone else Britain did a good job. Lots of countries only have a proper judicial system at all because of the British. There weren't that many massacres, and mostly they were due to incompetant local leaders rather than an overall policy. The dangers of inbreeding and class leading to power. Sigh.

I'm pretty sure the Commonwealth exists to glare harmlessly at Mugabwe for being the most evil ***** currently ruling anywhere.

---

My point exactly... :rolleyes:

How many exactly died after that partition set up by Britain in the subcontinent? How many wars did those two countries (created because of the benevolent bounty of Britain) fight after partition because of some odd land dispute that came up when the country was being partitioned? Let's ask those Indians and Pakistanis how they think of their old British rule?

Also, notable omission on China. :wink:

Before they go rushing into the arms of China, maybe they should confer with Tibet.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

My point exactly... :rolleyes:

How many exactly died after that partition set up by Britain in the subcontinent? How many wars did those two countries (created because of the benevolent bounty of Britain) fight after partition because of some odd land dispute that came up when the country was being partitioned? Let's ask those Indians and Pakistanis how they think of their old British rule?

Also, notable omission on China. :wink:

---

That would be the partition the British tried to avoid but which the Muslims in particular insisted on because they wanted to be ruled by Muslims?

Some other things to consider: Official policy was that money made in a province stayed in a province. Official policy was also generally not to muck around with local religion. There were some notable exceptions to the second in India, such as stamping out Thugee and stopping women from being thrown on their husbands' funeral pires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

That would be the partition the British tried to avoid but which the Muslims in particular insisted on because they wanted to be ruled by Muslims?

Some other things to consider: Official policy was that money made in a province stayed in a province. Official policy was also generally not to muck around with local religion. There were some notable exceptions to the second in India, such as stamping out Thugee and stopping women from being thrown on their husbands' funeral pires.

---

My point again... This is almost too good to be true.

This is exactly why so many Indians and Pakistanis remember their rule under the British as the glory days right? :rolleyes:

Oh, and though the sectarian groups may have wanted to be separate from each othe, I do know that the British were also quite keen in causing division between the two groups for awhile. I also know that Britain (rightfully so) gets some blame for rushing through the partition and causing that land dispute that has had a couple of wars fought over it...

I'm also sure that the British were nice enough to not exploit their colonies for the wealth and resources they had. After all the purpose of colonies is to spread the English language and help the natives setup nice judicial systems... :rolleyes:

Still omitting China... :wink:

Do you know what Thugee was?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Do you know what Thugee was?

---

No (well I just looked it up). Does it actually matter though, given the context of the discussion and my point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

My point again... This is almost too good to be true.

This is exactly why so many Indians and Pakistanis remember their rule under the British as the glory days right? :rolleyes:

Oh, and though the sectarian groups may have wanted to be separate from each othe, I do know that the British were also quite keen in causing division between the two groups for awhile. I also know that Britain (rightfully so) gets some blame for rushing through the partition and causing that land dispute that has had a couple of wars fought over it...

I'm also sure that the British were nice enough to not exploit their colonies for the wealth and resources they had. After all the purpose of colonies is to spread the English language and help the natives setup nice judicial systems... :rolleyes:

Still omitting China... :wink:

---

The people in the subcontinent wanted self rule - that's nationalism for you. It can hardly be denied that Hong Kong fared better under British rule than at any other time in its history, but did you know many of its people also wanted self-rule, and disparaged the Opium Wars that made it British?

FWIW, the Indians appreciated the British infrastructure enough to follow the Westminster version of parliamentary democracry, retain English as its language of government and retain British military and naval traditions. Ie. the skeleton of the Indian state was, and in many areas still is, British.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Africa: British rule was FAR better than the rule of the Belgians and the Germans, and the French.

---

In all fairness, Namibia wasn't that big of a mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The people in the subcontinent wanted self rule - that's nationalism for you. It can hardly be denied that Hong Kong fared better under British rule than at any other time in its history, but did you know many of its people also wanted self-rule, and disparaged the Opium Wars that made it British?

FWIW, the Indians appreciated the British infrastructure enough to follow the Westminster version of parliamentary democracry, retain English as its language of government and retain British military and naval traditions. Ie. the skeleton of the Indian state was, and in many areas still is, British.

---

Not you too Pannonian... :wall:

There are people here who like to say that we gave the Indians (Native Americans) a great deal. After all, the have their own private reservations, get to hunt protected animals that others can't, and the casinos... :no:

The similitude is just amazing... :rolleyes:

The fact is, the British exploited it's colonies, and the colonized suffered a lot. Now, with that said you all can go back to feeling good that your country didn't invent the technique that would only take 1 bullet to kill 6 or so natives (I think Belgium has this honor) and use it to prop yourselves up over France or whatever.

I'll just amuse myself with the utter ridiculousnesses of the discussion:

Quote:

---

The British Empire was so wicked and evil that a former colony of a 'rival' empire asks to be admitted to the Commonwealth.

---

Quote:

---

Give it up fellas. French stopped being the Lingua Franca hundreds of years ago.

---

Quote:

---

Of course, unlike the Francophony, the Commonwealth is not at all about bringing and keeping third world countries into any sphere of influence.
Nor would any English speaking country ever even consider supporting any side or dictator in the thirld world to increase their own influence.

---

Quote:

---

Although I seriously doubt that they would support a genocide just to keep alive the English language.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, genocide of two continents, human displacements, stimulated mass migration and oppression from Cork to Calcutta played no part in making English the world's lingua franca.

---

Quote:

---

There is however one thing that bugs me about French linguistic policy though. And that is that they have got it all backwards for three centuries now. First you should impose your economic power, and then they'll take over your language and culture. Language follows power. It's not the other way round like we think. Those grandmasters of imperialism the Anglo-saxons have understood this mechanism better. Or maybe they're simply more practical, less concerned with prestige, pomp and other frenchities.

---

Quote:

---

Africa: British rule was FAR better than the rule of the Belgians and the Germans, and the French.

Asia: neutral to positive. Helped many aspects of Indian society (suttee and the Thugs for example). Germans again were renowned for their actions (the Huns)

America: as in the USA: Mainly post independence. Canada seems to have coped without the slaughter. South / Central America is the work of Spanish and Portuguese. Of course if God says to slaughter, that's fine

---

:rolleyes:

Let me just add in, our country is the most beneficial to the conquered. We gave the Indians casinos! :stupido2:

Bur Reenk, 'Imperialism' is a great topic for a conversation. A wealth of insights and opinions have been shared in this thread already. The subtexts are even better.

There is so much to say about imperialism. 'Colonial exploitation it was', while correct, is certainly not the end all of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luigi VI di Fatlington

Bur Reenk, 'Imperialism' is a great topic for a conversation. A wealth of insights and opinions have been shared in this thread already. The subtexts are even better.

There is so much to say about imperialism. 'Colonial exploitation it was', while correct, is certainly not the end all of it.

---

"My country was a better imperialist than yours... :tongue3:"

...is the vibe of this thread... :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Not you too Pannonian... :wall:

There are people here who like to say that we gave the Indians (Native Americans) a great deal. After all, the have their own private reservations, get to hunt protected animals that others can't, and the casinos... :no:

The similitude is just amazing... :rolleyes:

---

Just showing how your reasoning doesn't work. Unlike the US in America, the British are no longer in control of India. If they wished, they could have got rid of all links with British rule decades ago. They have not. That would suggest they appreciate at least some aspects of the Raj. One can argue that the tangible benefits of colonial rule was built using resources that belonged to the Indians anyway, and thus should not be credited to the British. But what about the intangible aspects they've chosen to keep?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Just showing how your reasoning doesn't work. Unlike the US in America, the British are no longer in control of India. If they wished, they could have got rid of all links with British rule decades ago. They have not. That would suggest they appreciate at least some aspects of the Raj. One can argue that the tangible benefits of colonial rule was built using resources that belonged to the Indians anyway, and thus should not be credited to the British. But what about the intangible aspects they've chosen to keep?

---

You don't know the kind of autonomy the Native American's get here. My similitude is right on.

Now, What exactly do you want to prove Pannonian?

That your country was nicer imperialist than France?

Bravo, I hope this makes you get a warm fuzzy feeling... :rolleyes:

Or do you want to prove that British rule was on the whole better for the colonized than worse?

You'll have a hell of a time here. It's a delusion... :wink:

So the rule of law, covered sewers, judicial process are all bad things.

Get over it. The British (read, English elite) went out to make money off the rest of the world but at the same time the natives in Blighty were getting a pretty rare deal as well.

No one has said Imperialism is all good but seeing it as all bad is just as short sighted. By and large British government was at least as good as the government it replaced. India, South Africa, Australia and Canada all maintain at least a bare-bones British administration. The native population also, for the most part, retained their traditions and language.

You can't paint the British Empire as "bad" just because it was an Empire, if you want to do that I suggest you take a very good look at what came before and at what British policy was. The British Empire was created for a rather unique purpose: To create markets for British goods. To create those markets you have to increase standards of living, infastructure etc.

The Raj was not over-all negative, rule in parts of Africa was rather worse and Hong Kong was definately better off under British than Chinesse rule.

By contrast the US repeatedly betrayed the Native population by breaking it's own treaties and shuffling them onto the worst land and they remain second class citizens even today. Another point, the "Manifest Destiny" of and it's gobbling up of an entire continent was something actively resisted by the British and began only after independance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

You don't know the kind of autonomy the Native American's get here. My similitude is right on.

Now, What exactly do you want to prove Pannonian?

That your country was nicer imperialist than France?

Bravo, I hope this makes you get a warm fuzzy feeling... :rolleyes:

Or do you want to prove that British rule was on the whole better for the colonized than worse?

You'll have a hell of a time here. It's a delusion... :wink:

---

My point is that your asking whether or not Indians and Pakistanis have warm fuzzy feelings about British rule is beside the point. The Indians in particular have virtually continued British rule, but with Indians at the top. The structure remained the same, the infrastructure remained the same. The infrastructure we left behind isn't actually material - changing it shouldn't take much more than a determination to change attitudes and make the new system work. So why didn't they change it?

What have the ....ever done for us?

Sorry, but after reading the last few threads I couldn't get this out of my head.:laugh4:

Wigferth Ironwall: Liberia and Japan have sewers and rule of law. The only two places in the world to really escape colonization/imperialism by Europe (including the Ottoman Empire, I should add interior Arabia as free from it too).

I'm sure the Mogul Empire in India had quite a fine law code and architecture as well. They did build the Taj Mahal without British help... :rolleyes:

I'm not saying that colonization is all bad. I'm saying it's mostly bad. I'm not opposed to wars of conquest for God's sake. The thing I'm opposed to is the kind of talk I'm seeing in this thread... I'm opposed to the "My country was a nicer imperialist than yours" kind of talk...

Pannonian: See above.

Also let me tell you a story from my days in the school playground:

There were these two kids, Vinny Churchill and Chucky DeGaulle. They used to pick on Patel and Okonkwo respectively. They used to beat the living crap out of them, but Vinny used to say to Chucky, "I hit Patel less harder than you hit Okonkwo". Patel also saw that Vinny used to wear nice Nike's when he was stamping on his face, so he picked that style up. He continued it even long after Vinny stopped beating the hell out of him...

Get my drift?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Also let me tell you a story from my days in the school playground:

There were these two kids, Vinny Churchill and Chucky DeGaulle. They used to pick on Patel and Okonkwo respectively. They used to beat the living crap out of them, but Vinny used to say to Chucky, "I hit Patel less harder than you hit Okonkwo". Patel also saw that Vinny used to wear nice Nike's when he was stamping on his face, so he picked that style up. He continued it even long after Vinny stopped beating the hell out of him...

Get my drift?

---

Nice. :laugh4:

The point Pannonian and Wigferth are trying to make (beneath the old school Imperialism which is always grand to see) is that Empires are not by default wicked things.. which you seem to agree with. As to which was greater - their negative or posative impact - you could argue untill one or all of you starve to death. As things stand the conversation is going no where. So pretty please with a cherry on top, change it. :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Wigferth Ironwall: Liberia and Japan have sewers and rule of law. The only two places in the world to really escape colonization/imperialism by Europe (including the Ottoman Empire, I should add interior Arabia as free from it too).

I'm sure the Mogul Empire in India had quite a fine law code and architecture as well. They did build the Taj Mahal without British help... :rolleyes:

I'm not saying that colonization is all bad. I'm saying it's mostly bad. I'm not opposed to wars of conquest for God's sake. The thing I'm opposed to is the kind of talk I'm seeing in this thread... I'm opposed to the "My country was a nicer imperialist than yours" kind of talk...

Pannonian: See above.

Also let me tell you a story from my days in the school playground:

There were these two kids, Vinny Churchill and Chucky DeGaulle. They used to pick on Patel and Okonkwo respectively. They used to beat the living crap out of them, but Vinny used to say to Chucky, "I hit Patel less harder than you hit Okonkwo". Patel also saw that Vinny used to wear nice Nike's when he was stamping on his face, so he picked that style up. He continued it even long after Vinny stopped beating the hell out of him...

Get my drift?

---

You've made mutually contradictory points here, first remarking that the Moguls had sophisticated governmental structures of their own, then declining to reply directly to my question. It's easy to seemingly "win" an argument by telling a parable that seemingly proves all your points and discredits those of your opponent. But the allegory has to be accurate both in detail and import, and your allegory patently is not. Government is not a pair of Nikes. Let me tell you a story that doesn't resort to parodies.

I once knew a cop from Hong Kong. Having recently been through a phase of Infernal Affairs fandom, I asked him whether the changeover was really like that portrayed in Infernal Affairs 2, and how he felt about it. He replied, yes, it was exactly like that, and it felt good to be under Chinese rule again. This puzzled me, as Hong Kong was famously one of the greatest successes of the British colonial experience. Was British rule really that bad, I asked him. He replied no, mistakes continue to be made now as then, but at least mistakes are now made by Chinese rulers, not foreigners.

This made me realise that, although people may not be keen to return to colonial rule, it doesn't neceassarily mean they're bitter about the colonial legacy. For instance, India retained (and retains) much of the governmental structure the British left behind. Why would they keep these memories of the British if all their former colonial rulers gave them was devastation and exploitation?

Well said. The worst thing about colonialism is that the man on top screwing you over isn't local.

In any case it's not "my country was better" it's just "My country was not the evil Empire from Star Wars."

People slam British Imperialism for being Imperialist without actually looking at what being governed by Britain was like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

You've made mutually contradictory points here, first remarking that the Moguls had sophisticated governmental structures of their own, then declining to reply directly to my question.

---

I don't see the "mutually contradictory" points. In fact, given your statement, I'm not sure I can. Contradictory is defined to be as (p * ~p). You say that I remarked that the Moguls had "sophisticated government structures" (I actually said "law codes and architecture") and then I declined to reply directly to your question.

1) Moguls have law codes and architecture
2) Decline to directly reply to your question

How is that contradictory? Please, show me the new logical axioms that allow you to make such a claim.

Yes, the Moguls had law codes (which were successful in administering an empire for centuries) and architecture (that produced one of the 7 Wonders of the World) before the British came in. This point was made to Wigferth Ironwall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

It's easy to seemingly "win" an argument by telling a parable that seemingly proves all your points and discredits those of your opponent.

---

Let me just make this clear. I'm not here to "win" any argument. I don't even post much in the Backroom anymore with the exception of the "Regarding Atheism..." thread. The reason I piped up in this thread was because of the infantile quips of "My country was a better imperialist than yours" that were seen in the beginning. Now, you and Wigferth Ironwall have not exactly done that, but you still have too much of an emphasis on the "good" aspects of colonialism (which are marginal in the face of the "bad").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

But the allegory has to be accurate both in detail and import, and your allegory patently is not. Government is not a pair of Nikes. Let me tell you a story that doesn't resort to parodies.

---

Your statement of "Government is not Nikes" is certainly stating the obvious. That is why an allegory is used. :idea2:

Now, to defend my allegory from your baseless claims. It certainly is accurate. Satire and parody can be painfully accurate you know, and are actually very effective...

Both Britain and France went into countries. They both violently suppressed the native populations. They both killed natives. They both continued to do so as long as their hegemony was there. They both exploited the conquered peoples a lot (I forgot to add that Vinny and Chucky stole lunch money). They also built some public works and placed their own government structure in the colonies.

Let's weigh the sides shall we?

Given all of that, keeping some government structure from the colonial days seems ephemeral. It may just be me, who really couldn't give two ***** about governments, but after all the killing, and exploitation, some governmental infrastructure doesn't seem to tip the scale very much at all. In that it certainly is comparable to my Nike allegory.

Like I've stated to Wigferth Ironwall, I never said Imperialism and Colonialism was all bad. I said it was mostly bad. You guys are trying to put me up as an all or nothing guy here. It's not going to work.

You guys are also trying to futilely point out certain "good" consequences that colonialism brought. Why?

If it's to make me aware of them, you're wasting your time. I already know that Colonialism ushered in some good reforms. The problem is the bad. I have already shown that the "bad" outweighs the "good" by and incredibly lopsided margin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I once knew a cop from Hong Kong. Having recently been through a phase of Infernal Affairs fandom, I asked him whether the changeover was really like that portrayed in Infernal Affairs 2, and how he felt about it. He replied, yes, it was exactly like that, and it felt good to be under Chinese rule again. This puzzled me, as Hong Kong was famously one of the greatest successes of the British colonial experience. Was British rule really that bad, I asked him. He replied no, mistakes continue to be made now as then, but at least mistakes are now made by Chinese rulers, not foreigners.

This made me realise that, although people may not be keen to return to colonial rule, it doesn't neceassarily mean they're bitter about the colonial legacy. For instance, India retained (and retains) much of the governmental structure the British left behind. Why would they keep these memories of the British if all their former colonial rulers gave them was devastation and exploitation?

---

This is not a allegory at all. It is an anecdote. So, you have given one anecdote of a Hong Kong man. Still, even an anecdote is valuable, and I understand his and your point. However, we must remember that this is in Hong Kong (which as you said was Britain's most successful colony). If a statistically sound survey of all of Britain's colonial properties was done, I would guess there would be some real resentment.

As for why India has kept British government systems, it may be because they work. It may be because that is what they are used to. However, like I said, the positives of government system is ephemeral when compared to the negatives...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

In any case it's not "my country was better" it's just "My country was not the evil Empire from Star Wars."

---

I think if you'll look at the thread closely, you'll see that's what it is exactly about. I even made a long list of quotes in this post.

I have yet to see a this huge amount of "bad" stuff that we did. Certainly British rule was rarely worse than what went before and the rule exerted at home by the colonial powers wasn't any better.

So, lets see.

Britain Empire was ecenomic in nature, largely aquired through very crafty diplomacy and legal manuvering. India is an excellant example of this, much of the Raj defaulted to Britain on the death of the local ruler.

Britain put down rebelions in it's colonies brutally, but then it did the same at home. Which is why there are people in Australia.

In general Britain brought a great many improvements which included physical and political infastructure which survives today.

Britain was not all good but a lot of the "bad" was a case of local, and in particular military, stupidity; not official policy.

Show me life was worse for the natives after we took over or that life for the lower classes in Britain was significantly better and I might begin to believe you.

You will obviously have a better grasp of British history then me, but a quick Wikipedia search already got me this on the Raj:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj

If you would like a better source, I will search for confirmation.

Quote:

---

The British first established a territorial foothold in the Indian subcontinent when Company-funded soldiers commanded by Robert Clive defeated the Bengali Nawab Siraj Ud Daulah at the Battle of Plassey in 1757. Bengal's riches were expropriated, the East India Company monopolised Bengali trade and Bengal became a British protectorate directly under its rule. Bengali farmers and craftsmen were obliged to render their labour for minimal remuneration while their collective tax burden increased greatly. Some believe that as a consequence, the famine of 1769 to 1773 cost the lives of 10 million Bengalis.

---

Now, as you can see Bengali's had to work for less and pay more taxes under British rule. The famine that followed may have been partly due to this.

That would be East India Company. Not a part of the British Empire. In point of fact only one line Regiment was present at Plassey, the 39th Dorsets.

Reading further down in that article makes it quite clear that the EIC was at fault in all those cases. As I said, local stupidity.

Clive of India went to my old school. :2thumbsup:

Re: The Battle of Plassey. Not so much a battle as a bribe.

Just for historical accuracy. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

That would be East India Company. Not a part of the British Empire. In point of fact only one line Regiment was present at Plassey, the 39th Dorsets.

Reading further down in that article makes it quite clear that the EIC was at fault in all those cases. As I said, local stupidity.

---

OK, this makes me think you will clear Britain of blame for any incident I throw at you... :rolleyes:

I'm going to do some more in-depth research. I'll be back.

Just for now: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british...llion_01.shtml

The simple test for proponents of empire is whether you would like to have the "benefits" of it brought forcibly to you.

I seem to recall the British being less than keen on the Reich bringing them the benefits of autobahns and full employment, or happily welcoming the advantages of the Code Napoleon.

Why so?

Oh noes we colonized teh poor brown pepole!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Its not like we can do much about it now and we shouldnt. Every country fights to be on top and the west won this time. Thats just the way the cookie crumbles. Although me being descedents of former colonized and opperesd people. I can say you must fight and capture there leader. VIVA EL TEJAS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

The simple test for proponents of empire is whether you would like to have the "benefits" of it brought forcibly to you.

I seem to recall the British being less than keen on the Reich bringing them the benefits of autobahns and full employment, or happily welcoming the advantages of the Code Napoleon.

Why so?

---

That's a good test for establishing an Empire looking back on one it doesn't work, also to what extent do you take it?

The Cornish want self rule does that make modern Britain an evil Empire?

In answer to your question. No, I wouldn't really want to be ruled by another country but since we are already ruled by the US I have learned to live with it.

Noooo, we start to speak about the French, and as usual it turns about the English.
We had the best Empire. I mean the French.
The Vietnamese are still baking baguettes, for example. Is there any English Restaurant in the world?
The Capital of Congo is Brazzaville, still the name of the horrible Colonialist…
Ok, we lost a lot to the Brits who deported massively the Canadian who became the Acadian in Louisiana (that is for other example of deportation), but were first… We fought every where and even if we didn’t blow up some sepoys attached the mouth of our canons but we did our best to kill natives, and our jail (bagne) of Paulo Condor was really good in making every body communist…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

OK, this makes me think you will clear Britain of blame for any incident I throw at you... :rolleyes:

I'm going to do some more in-depth research. I'll be back.

Just for now: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british...llion_01.shtml

---

I think you have to look at the historical context. The British Empire was always an anachronism. It started as a trading attempt at a monopoly but soon developed into a way of thwarting the French.

The ordinary people in Great Britain didn't get a lot from the Empire. Then, as now, the main beneficiaries were the mercantile classes and the upper/ruling classes.

My maternal grandfather was in the Indian Army (distinct from the British Army) and often used to say to me that we (Brits) had raped the country and bled it white. All he got for his pains were a set of buggered up feet from all the stomping and marching he did (Ring any bells BQ?) and a pittance of a pension.

I'm just old enough to remember the last vestiges of Empire. It seemed that every week Madge and Phil the Greek were off somewhere to lower the Union Flag and watch a gaudy coloured flag run up to replace it. I saw it on the telly.

In contrast to other (European) Empires at the time, it probably was a bit more enlightened than most. After all we only really acquired an Empire by accident.

Richard Holmes from Cranfield University did an excellent series on this subject last year on BBC1. Fascinating stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

That's a good test for establishing an Empire looking back on one it doesn't work, also to what extent do you take it?

---

Of course you can't be responsible for the Empire as it was established, but you can stop being an apologist for it, especially when you wouldn't want to be subject to its "benefits" yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

All he got for his pains were a set of buggered up feet from all the stomping and marching he did (Ring any bells BQ?) and a pittance of a pension.

---

:no: You forget, I was an officer-sahib. I had a batman to do all my marching and a few native stomp-wallahs for the rest. My role was to drink gin, play polo and chase off the mango-waving rebels who objected to my pension being taken directly from their GDP with withering rank fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Of course you can't be responsible for the Empire as it was established, but you can stop being an apologist for it, especially when you wouldn't want to be subject to its "benefits" yourself.

---

I'm not an apologist, I accept that a lot of bad things were done to a fairly large percentage of the world's population under British rule but I don't believe that it makes the British Empire bad. The Roman Empire is rarely viewed as a "bad" thing yet it was surely far more brutal. People don't bang on about the evils of the Caliphate during the Mediaeval period either. Hell, half the time not even the Ottoman Empire gets as much flak as the British Empire.

The British Empire was a form of government during the 19th and early 20th Centuries, and as I said, unless you can show me it was overall worse than what came before you can't call it a bad thing. Which doesn't make it a good thing either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

I don't see the "mutually contradictory" points. In fact, given your statement, I'm not sure I can. Contradictory is defined to be as (p * ~p). You say that I remarked that the Moguls had "sophisticated government structures" (I actually said "law codes and architecture") and then I declined to reply directly to your question.

1) Moguls have law codes and architecture
2) Decline to directly reply to your question

How is that contradictory? Please, show me the new logical axioms that allow you to make such a claim.

Yes, the Moguls had law codes (which were successful in administering an empire for centuries) and architecture (that produced one of the 7 Wonders of the World) before the British came in. This point was made to Wigferth Ironwall.

---

I was referring to the law codes as part of the state, as I had already ruled out counting material benefits as the rightful fruits of native investment that shouldn't be credited to the British. Architecture, roads, railsways, etc. are to be credited solely to the Indians as their rightful heritage, the results of their own labour and investment. The only things I counted in Britain's credit were the tools of state, the code of law being one of its components. AFAIK from my Indian acquaintances the current code of law is derived from the British, not the Moguls. Why? It's not as though the conqueror automatically imposes its culture in history - much of the substance of British liberal democracy is derived from the cultures of the conquered Ango-Saxons and Vikings, with the top-down rulership of the Normans being sidelined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Your statement of "Government is not Nikes" is certainly stating the obvious. That is why an allegory is used. :idea2:

Now, to defend my allegory from your baseless claims. It certainly is accurate. Satire and parody can be painfully accurate you know, and are actually very effective...

Both Britain and France went into countries. They both violently suppressed the native populations. They both killed natives. They both continued to do so as long as their hegemony was there. They both exploited the conquered peoples a lot (I forgot to add that Vinny and Chucky stole lunch money). They also built some public works and placed their own government structure in the colonies.

Let's weigh the sides shall we?

Given all of that, keeping some government structure from the colonial days seems ephemeral. It may just be me, who really couldn't give two ***** about governments, but after all the killing, and exploitation, some governmental infrastructure doesn't seem to tip the scale very much at all. In that it certainly is comparable to my Nike allegory.

Like I've stated to Wigferth Ironwall, I never said Imperialism and Colonialism was all bad. I said it was mostly bad. You guys are trying to put me up as an all or nothing guy here. It's not going to work.

You guys are also trying to futilely point out certain "good" consequences that colonialism brought. Why?

If it's to make me aware of them, you're wasting your time. I already know that Colonialism ushered in some good reforms. The problem is the bad. I have already shown that the "bad" outweighs the "good" by and incredibly lopsided margin.

---

Err, have you ever talked to any Indians? The ones I've spoken to regarded the colonial history as something that happened in the past, and none of their concern. They're as bitter about it as the English are about the Normans for invading them in 1066. What they are bitter about is the separation of Pakistan from India, and not for the suffering that partition saw. Their experience of the colonial legacy is what they experience now, now what happened in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

This is not a allegory at all. It is an anecdote. So, you have given one anecdote of a Hong Kong man. Still, even an anecdote is valuable, and I understand his and your point. However, we must remember that this is in Hong Kong (which as you said was Britain's most successful colony). If a statistically sound survey of all of Britain's colonial properties was done, I would guess there would be some real resentment.

---

My point is that people will want to govern themselves, not just because they disagree with the substance of colonial rule, but overridingly because of nationalistic pride. IIRC Gandhi remakred, if given a choice between the British or civil war, the British should go immediately. Did this mean he preferred civil war? No, it meant he wanted the British out of India. Then look at the other former colonies, who saw the British as friends and perhaps even benefactors, as soon as they were kicked out of there.

That's part of the driving force of the Commonwealth - we weren't really hated once we were removed as their overlords and they treated us as equals, and the British legacy gave them a common platform from which to build the future. A lot of Commonwealth activity takes place without our active participation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

As for why India has kept British government systems, it may be because they work. It may be because that is what they are used to. However, like I said, the positives of government system is ephemeral when compared to the negatives...

---

However, those "positives" are current, while the "negatives" are all in the past. We've been gone nearly 60 years now, but they still use the Westminster system, they still use substantially British laws, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Noooo, we start to speak about the French, and as usual it turns about the English.

---

I'll bet you a tenner that the English didn't understand either the historical references, sarcasm or humour of your post. ~;)

Also, you do realise that you've just breached Article 4 of the law of 23 february 2005?

£10 on it's way.

Tres Bien.

I'll bet you a tenner that the English didn't understand either the historical references, sarcasm or humour of your post.
And that is why Research Engines were invented…
:book:
Also, you do realise that you've just breached Article 4 of the law of 23 february 2005?
Err, I broke a lot f... stupid laws in the past (but in Foreign and Savage Countries, it doesn’t count) so can you light my lantern (directly translated from French)? :sweatdrop:

All you need to do to join the Commonwealth is beat England at one of their national sports.

But you must remember that, on accasion, they will beat you.

Eh Pape?

They might even spell their own language correctly.

Bit more the on an occasion... being a Kiwi we get thrashed regularly.

I thought you spell the way we do.

Only occasionally ~;)

So you spell like Americans?

I'm confused:help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

So you spell like Americans?

I'm confused:help:

---

To put you out of your misery, Wigferth, Pape was joshing you about this post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

But you must remember that, on accasion, they will beat you.

---

where you spelt occasion wrong.

:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

To put you out of your misery, Wigferth, Pape was joshing you about this post:



where you spelt occasion wrong.

:beam:

---

I never knew non-Yanks "joshed". Learn something new here everyday, I do.

Ah, cobblers. You know I'm dyslexic. You should have seen the thread where I said a woman's complexion was "floorless"

:laugh4:

*Pockets IA's tenner*



*rushes off to the store to finally buy some food *

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

I'll bet you a tenner that the English didn't understand either the historical references, sarcasm or humour of your post.
And that is why Research Engines were invented…
:book:
Also, you do realise that you've just breached Article 4 of the law of 23 february 2005?
Err, I broke a lot f... stupid laws in the past (but in Foreign and Savage Countries, it doesn’t count) so can you light my lantern (directly translated from French)? :sweatdrop:

---

Light your lantern? Non. That is why Research Engines were invented…:beam:

But seriously. I was refering to this law. *

Quote:

---

The February 23, 2005 French law on colonialism was an act passed by the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) conservative majority, which imposed on high-school (lycée) teachers to teach the "positive values" of colonialism to their students (article 4). The law created a public uproar and opposition from the whole of the left-wing, and was finally repealed by president Jacques Chirac (UMP) at the beginning of 2006, after accusations of historical revisionism from various teachers and historians,

Un passé qui ne passe pas (A past that doesn't pass...)
The debate lifted on the February 23, 2005 law point out, however, to a further debate in France concerning colonialism, which is linked to immigration. As the historian Benjamin Stora pointed out, colonialism is a major "memory" stake that is influencing the way various communities and the nation itself represent themselves.

Official state history always had a hard time accepting the existence of past crimes and errors. Historian Olivier LeCour Grandmaison also criticized the law. Indeed, the Algerian war of independence (1954-1962), previously qualified as a "public order operation", was only recognized as a "war" by the French National Assembly in 1999. [5] In the same sense, philosopher Paul Ricœur (1981) has underlined the needs for a "decolonization of memory", because mentalities themselves have been colonized during the "Age of imperialism."

---

I'm glad is was repealed. I do not disagree with the intent of the law, but it has been getting a bit much with official state history. I never minded the law against holocaust denial. But the opponents were right. It was a pandora's box, that opened the way for government interference on every historical subject. The Holocaust, Armenia, colonialism.

Our colonial past is too much of a controversial subject, with too many emtionally charged and directly oppossed opinions to leave it to any official history.

*J'espère que cela éclaire votre lanterne. ~;)

As an outsider looking in, I beg the question. Does the UK have any laws similar to the French laws for protection of culture? You know, those ones meant to retard all competition to their culture and language? When i first heard of these I thought of the first laws for "cultural protection" passed decades earlier to the east of france...

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

You're joking right? We pretty much have the reverse, whic is, indirectly, responsible for the binge-drinking culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

You're joking right? We pretty much have the reverse, whic is, indirectly, responsible for the binge-drinking culture.

---

:listen: shhhhhhh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

You're joking right? We pretty much have the reverse, whic is, indirectly, responsible for the binge-drinking culture.

---

England doesn't have culture. Everyone knows that.

And Scotland still claim they are somehow swamped by it. They just need excuses for why their culture revolves around getting drunk and knifing people... :)

You don't even do much English history in school besides the Tudors. The Empire? What was that?

“Does the UK have any laws similar to the French laws for protection of culture? You know, those ones meant to retard all competition to their culture and language? When i first heard of these I thought of the first laws for "cultural protection" passed decades earlier to the east of france...”
Just a short question before to go to work before my first reaction: Are you comparing France of nowadays with Nazi Germany? If yes, just read the French laws. It is mainly to stop the import of English word in official language when the French word exists. That is very very very dangerous for democracy…
Are you this kind of American who when earring the word “French” you take you gun?

“The February 23, 2005” Oh, this law… Well, this absolute non-sense was the equivalent of the other non-sense for blaming all misery on colonialism. But it is not to the Assembly to decide to high light one particular point of a very complex process… And it created immediately a question for which (colonial) Empire: The first one or the Second one?
This new fashion to apologise for every things or the absolute need to be “genocided” is ridiculous…