The British Empire was evil

11516171921

Comments

  • imrightokimrightok Posts: 8,492
    Forum Member
    Did you include Rwanda on that list (of four countries) intentionally or just because of ignorance ?

    A lot can happen in 5 years.
  • 2+2=52+2=5 Posts: 24,264
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Alan1981 wrote: »
    Yeah yeah we get it. The British empire was evil and now we are bound to take in every immigrant for ad infinitum to make up for it.

    Could be karma. If you believe in such things.

    The Empire is too complex to describe in a few sentences. Good and bad and amazing feats of both cowardice and courage occurred throughout its history. Spectacular industrial feats, ignominious defeats, it's all there for everyone to see. The difference is the spin you want to put on it and the parts you want to talk about (and the parts you want to omit).

    If you look at the whole, was it a force for good? Or bad? Or just an empire that existed and ended with a multitude of events in between?
  • Trsvis_BickleTrsvis_Bickle Posts: 9,202
    Forum Member
    imrightok wrote: »
    There are too many to list. But just think about some of the African countries such as Malawi , Rwanda,Gambia and in Asia Bangladesh. Like I said there's more but too many to list.

    So that would be the Rwanda that was initially part of German East Africa and then controlled by Belgium until independence in 1962?:D

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda
  • sutiesutie Posts: 32,645
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Which makes the British hypocrites, because they did the same to other people.



    When you say 'The British,' how many of them do you mean?

    I take it you're one of these people who are ridden with guilt, which they feel that every one of us should share?

    And all for something which none of us had any hand in whatsoever?

    I'll pass if you don't mind. :sleep:
  • redtuxredtux Posts: 1,241
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The British invaded Afghanistan and got their ass handed to them.

    And its such a wonderful place
  • SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    I am proud of our empire, the largest empire in history.

    one fifth of the world's population and one quarter of the land surface.

    Not bad for a few little islands.
  • FMKKFMKK Posts: 32,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    SULLA wrote: »
    I am proud of our empire, the largest empire in history.

    one fifth of the world's population and one quarter of the land surface.

    Not bad for a few little islands.

    Why would one be proud that their nation was powerful in past centuries? I don't understand it. And surely one cannot be proud of the empire as a whole because that would mean taking pride in the crimes of imperialism as much as any positives.
  • CadivaCadiva Posts: 18,408
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    FMKK wrote: »
    Why would one be proud that their nation was powerful in past centuries? I don't understand it. And surely one cannot be proud of the empire as a whole because that would mean taking pride in the crimes of imperialism as much as any positives.

    Not sure why the one precludes the other to be perfectly honest. People can be proud of the positive achievements of the British Empire and yet express regret at the negatives which went alongside it.
  • FMKKFMKK Posts: 32,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Cadiva wrote: »
    Not sure why the one precludes the other to be perfectly honest. People can be proud of the positive achievements of the British Empire and yet express regret at the negatives which went alongside it.

    But to say 'I'm proud of our empire' without qualifier seems like triumphalism of conquest rather than simply being proud of the positives.
  • RhumbatuggerRhumbatugger Posts: 85,678
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    FMKK wrote: »
    Why would one be proud that their nation was powerful in past centuries? I don't understand it. And surely one cannot be proud of the empire as a whole because that would mean taking pride in the crimes of imperialism as much as any positives.

    People can be proud of the good things, and the influence we once had in a general way, without all the breastbeating we seem to have to do.

    I bet a lot of Greeks are proud of their history, that was BASED on slavery, but you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
  • SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    FMKK wrote: »
    Why would one be proud that their nation was powerful in past centuries? I don't understand it.
    That's true.
    And surely one cannot be proud of the empire as a whole because that would mean taking pride in the crimes of imperialism as much as any positives.
    Yet I am
    FMKK wrote: »
    But to say 'I'm proud of our empire' without qualifier seems like triumphalism of conquest rather than simply being proud of the positives.
    OK. I am proud of all the positives.
  • jriojrio Posts: 3,135
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    2+2=5 wrote: »
    Could be karma. If you believe in such things.

    The Empire is too complex to describe in a few sentences. Good and bad and amazing feats of both cowardice and courage occurred throughout its history. Spectacular industrial feats, ignominious defeats, it's all there for everyone to see. The difference is the spin you want to put on it and the parts you want to talk about (and the parts you want to omit).

    If you look at the whole, was it a force for good? Or bad? Or just an empire that existed and ended with a multitude of events in between?
    It's pretty easy to look at it from a neutral view.

    Command a country, extort its assets, commit its weakest to servility, control it to your own devices.

    There you have it.

    Now, tell us how you saw the Roman invasion of Britain in your own words: How it benefited the population, the Roman intentions, how the natives flourished under it, just the whole outcome.
  • CadivaCadiva Posts: 18,408
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    FMKK wrote: »
    But to say 'I'm proud of our empire' without qualifier seems like triumphalism of conquest rather than simply being proud of the positives.

    And you're welcome to interpret it in that fashion if you choose. I'm not the poster who said it so can't answer for what they meant.
  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I bet a lot of Greeks are proud of their history, that was BASED on slavery, but you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater

    Ditto The Italians - they were SO proud of their slavery- and conquest-based Empire that they very intentionally tried to recreate it in the 1930s!

    And the Romans were FAR and away the most brutal conquerors of all the great empire builders. See the first chapter of the book "Rubicon"...you could tell a city that hat been attacked and sacked by the Romans in their Empire-building phase INSIDE the Italian Peninsula, in the days of the Early Republic...EVERYTHING was destroyed or raped or butchered, the Romans were "famous" at the time for even butchering the dogs in a captured city - EVERYTHING died.

    Amd yet....mid-20th century Italians were actually proud of that...
  • RhumbatuggerRhumbatugger Posts: 85,678
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jrio wrote: »
    It's pretty easy to look at it from a neutral view.

    Command a country, extort its assets, commit its weakest to servility, control it to your own devices.

    There you have it.

    Now, tell us how you saw the Roman invasion of Britain in your own words: How it benefited the population, the Roman intentions, how the natives flourished under it, just the whole outcome.

    The Romans had a model which was to INVOLVE the client countries - to make it worth their while to be part of Rome. They did a lot to civilize the place:

    Straight roads, law and order, decimal coinage, underfloor heating, wine, aqueducts, sewers - good trade links, mosaics - shame they weren't here longer.:p

    The British used the Roman model, how ELSE could a few thousand Raj have ruled India?


    Just seen your post Phylo - and yes the Romans were pretty brutal. Still though, they didn't JUST plunder and destroy.

    The Golden Horde did that.
  • jriojrio Posts: 3,135
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ditto The Italians - they were SO proud of their slavery- and conquest-based Empire that they very intentionally tried to recreate it in the 1930s!

    And the Romans were FAR and away the most brutal conquerors of all the great empire builders. See the first chapter of the book "Rubicon"...you could tell a city that hat been attacked and sacked by the Romans in their Empire-building phase INSIDE the Italian Peninsula, in the days of the Early Republic...EVERYTHING was destroyed or raped or butchered, the Romans were "famous" at the time for even butchering the dogs in a captured city - EVERYTHING died.

    Amd yet....mid-20th century Italians were actually proud of that...
    Do you see what's wrong with that?

    Or are you too obsessed with pretending that what the British did was far lighter, almost so light as to be quite nice?
  • Dub2Dub2 Posts: 2,862
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    SULLA wrote: »
    I am proud of our empire, the largest empire in history.

    one fifth of the world's population and one quarter of the land surface.

    Not bad for a few little islands.

    You take pride in military occupation and subjugation of a quarter of the world population, yet label freedom fighters like the IRA, ANC or PLO as murderers and terrorists ?

    And i bet you wonder why most of the world hate the English ..:eek::D
  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Romans had a model which was to INVOLVE the client countries - to make it worth their while to be part of Rome. They did a lot to civilize the place:

    Straight roads, law and order, decimal coinage, underfloor heating, wine, aqueducts, sewers - good trade links, mosaics - shame they weren't here longer.

    The British used the Roman model, how ELSE could a few thousand Raj have ruled India?

    And ONLY resrted to force of arms when -

    1/ the locals did!, and

    2/ whenever it was more profitable to (See Peter Heather's book) in taking control of a new territory. Because there was a VERY fine balance in the Roman World between occupying a buit of countryside and it paying the cost of its defence...and it NOT being economically worthwhile.

    Hence the retreat from the Antonine Wall to Hadrian's Wall, the retreat from Dacia (when the silver mines ran out)....and long before that the "withdrawal" ordered by Augustus in his "will" from North of the Rhine after Teutobergerwald to south of the Limes.
  • jriojrio Posts: 3,135
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Romans had a model which was to INVOLVE the client countries - to make it worth their while to be part of Rome. They did a lot to civilize the place:

    Straight roads, law and order, decimal coinage, underfloor heating, wine, aqueducts, sewers - good trade links, mosaics - shame they weren't here longer.:p

    The British used the Roman model, how ELSE could a few thousand Raj have ruled India?


    Just seen your post Phylo - and yes the Romans were pretty brutal. Still though, they didn't JUST plunder and destroy.

    The Golden Horde did that.

    The British didn't use the Roman model, that's ignorance.

    The Romans ruthlessly invaded and subjugated, that's not how the British acquired an empire. You're ignorant of history.
  • sutiesutie Posts: 32,645
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    flowerpowa wrote: »
    Do you reside in this country? it must be a living hell for you every day, having to mingle with British people.



    Blood is seeping from my heart for him. :D
  • RhumbatuggerRhumbatugger Posts: 85,678
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Dub2 wrote: »
    You take pride in military occupation and subjugation of a quarter of the world population, yet label freedom fighters like the IRA, ANC or PLO as murderers and terrorists ?

    And i bet you wonder why most of the world hate the English ..:eek::D

    Britain didn't have enough military to subdue and subjugate a quarter of the world.

    And no, most sensible people who understand history don't hate the English.
  • RhumbatuggerRhumbatugger Posts: 85,678
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jrio wrote: »
    The British didn't use the Roman model, that's ignorance.

    The Romans ruthlessly invaded and subjugated, that's not how the British acquired an empire. You're ignorant of history.

    Sigh - influenced by then.
  • RhumbatuggerRhumbatugger Posts: 85,678
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ahem...wasn't Bangladesh doing ok when it was "East Pakistan"??? ;)

    They went it alone and have been pretty stuffed ever since with natural disaster after natural disaster.

    I'm not sure we can be held responsible for a third-hand problem?

    Oh I expect so. Rationality isn't a strong point in much of this thread.
  • SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Dub2 wrote: »
    You take pride in military occupation and subjugation of a quarter of the world population, yet label freedom fighters like the IRA, ANC or PLO as murderers and terrorists ?

    And i bet you wonder why most of the world hate the English ..:eek::D
    Yes I do wonder at it.

    I also know that we didn't lose the empire due to defeat. We gave it away. Unfortunately in many of the countries who were clamoring for independence, it was chaos after we gave it them.
  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I also know that we didn't lose the empire due to defeat. We gave it away.

    And in several well-known cases gave it away AFTER defeating any local independence movements! :rolleyes:
Sign In or Register to comment.