Commonwealth 1 France 0

[Pannonian]

Not you too Pannonian...

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...

The similitude is just amazing...

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?

[Reenk Roink]

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...

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...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Pannonian]

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...

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...

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?

[Hosakawa Tito]

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

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

[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...

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?

[Justiciar]

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.

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.

[Pannonian]

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...

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?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Reenk Roink]

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.

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").

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.

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.

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...

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.