How can anyone grieve for something they've never known? I'm 40, I've never known empire, my parents, in their 60s have never known empire. My nan, in her late 80s was around for the end of empire, just about and she would have been very young. Hardly anyone voting in the referendum was around when Britain was an empire so to claim that we are all grieving for it is total nonsense.
We are part of a Commonwealth of Nations generally sharing a common language, common legal traditions, usually drive on the left and who fought with us in WWII and didn't surrender. Indeed many of them still have the Queen as Head of State.
There is a lot to build on as these are growing nations where the future is - Malaysia not Montenegro, India not Italy, Singapore not Slovakia. If you want go build a stronger future go with the future - not the past.
Sharing a common language and traditions is not to be sniffed at.
We are part of a Commonwealth of Nations generally sharing a common language, common legal traditions, usually drive on the left and who fought with us in WWII and didn't surrender. Indeed many of them still have the Queen as Head of State.
There is a lot to build on as these are growing nations where the future is - Malaysia not Montenegro, India not Italy, Singapore not Slovakia. If you want go build a stronger future go with the future - not the past.
Sharing a common language and traditions is not to be sniffed at.
Some Commonwealth countries have their own language and the English spoken is not the same as that in the UK. As for traditions - what traditions? A spot of tea when the cricket is called off?
Add to that the simple geographical location that makes business in their area of the world preferable.
Last, but perhaps most importantly, the UK and all EU countries entered the Union by a series of voluntary democratic procedures. The UK conquered its Empire by violent means and subjugated the countries therein. The battle for independence - such as India and Kenya - occurred within living memory, and some people lost their lives in that fight. In Mau Mau in particular widespread colonial atrocities committed by the UK in the 50s were covered up.
In 2013 the UK paid out £19.9m compensation to more than 5,000 Kenyans who suffered torture and abuse during the Mau Mau uprising in which at least 12,000 people were killed mainly Africans. Currently, the government is also facing a class action from 44,000 Kenyans who suffered beatings and torture under British rule.
All in all, ignorant, poor taste and embarrassing.
Well see you have it all a little askew. The 'voluntary' entering into as regards Heath and the Tories was never stated to be the case. 'We will negotiate no more no less'.
New Labour were elected on the basis of a referendum on the EU Constitution. The polls predicted a catastrophic defeat for the Europhiles so we did not get it. It was our elected representatives who adopted that 'voluntary' position but expressly against the wishes of the people as the polls in the early seventies also indicate.
Many Indian States in the Empire actually had heads of states who voluntarily entered into agreements with the British. It was the British that ended slavery in India, as well as many of the much more barbaric cultural proclivities and it was the British that closed off Zanzibar where annually tens of thousands of slaves were shipped each year after delivery by Arab slave traders. The Empire was not all good but nor was it all bad, it was a product of the times and in many respects was more enlightened than the times.
Your example of the Mau Mau is an interesting one and the bad treatment in the camps was the subject of parliamentary debate and censure and the Hola Camp atrocities provided Enoch Powell the opportunity to make what some regard as one of the finest speeches in Parliamentary history. The prevarication of British Governments is normally overcome by those in Parliament putting the case of the British public. It was true in Kenya and it was true during the Boer War and the Black and Tan excesses in Ireland.
The British Empire has done bad things it is the British people that normally brought that Empire to account and stopped the bad. Back to the Mau Mau one has to remember that the administration at the time was trying to stop a brutal uprising by rebels killing many British settlers and many more other people from African groups. Rape, torture and mutilation were the hallmarks of the uprising. That does not excuse but it helps to explain and that is what made Powell's speech so powerful.
Well see you have it all a little askew. The 'voluntary' entering into as regards Heath and the Tories was never stated to be the case. 'We will negotiate no more no less'.
New Labour were elected on the basis of a referendum on the EU Constitution. The polls predicted a catastrophic defeat for the Europhiles so we did not get it. It was our elected representatives who adopted that 'voluntary' position but expressly against the wishes of the people as the polls in the early seventies also indicate.
Many Indian States in the Empire actually had heads of states who voluntarily entered into agreements with the British. It was the British that ended slavery in India, as well as many of the much more barbaric cultural proclivities and it was the British that closed off Zanzibar where annually tens of thousands of slaves were shipped each year after delivery by Arab slave traders. The Empire was not all good but nor was it all bad, it was a product of the times and in many respects was more enlightened than the times.
Your example of the Mau Mau is an interesting one and the bad treatment in the camps was the subject of parliamentary debate and censure and the Hola Camp atrocities provided Enoch Powell the opportunity to make what some regard as one of the finest speeches in Parliamentary history. The prevarication of British Governments is normally overcome by those in Parliament putting the case of the British public. It was true in Kenya and it was true during the Boer War and the Black and Tan excesses in Ireland.
The British Empire has done bad things it is the British people that normally brought that Empire to account and stopped the bad. Back to the Mau Mau one has to remember that the administration at the time was trying to stop a brutal uprising by rebels killing many British settlers and many more other people from African groups. Rape, torture and mutilation were the hallmarks of the uprising. That does not excuse but it helps to explain and that is what made Powell's speech so powerful.
So to paraphrase - the British were superior and unthinking with regard to other countries for several hundred years, but we stopped it in the end so it's all good?
So they are right to leave the empire and we are wrong to want to leave Junckers little club ?
There is no comparison. Most countries in the British Empire were invaded or colonised by Britain : the EU is a voluntary economic and political union between partners (every country who is in it applied for membership).
So to paraphrase - the British were superior and unthinking with regard to other countries for several hundred years, but we stopped it in the end so it's all good?
There is no comparison. Most countries in the British Empire were invaded or colonised by Britain : the EU is a voluntary economic and political union between partners (every country who is in it applied for membership).
Anachronistic views. It was fine, then, for countries who thought themselves more civilised than others to impose that civilisation whether wanted or not.
It wasn't just Britain - France, Belgium, Italy all did it. The British were better at it, that's all.
Actually the attitude persists. The mess in the Middle East now is the result of the Americans and their allies imposing Western ideals of democracy on other countries.
But people who dwell on the evilness of the British Empire are just as much fixated on the past as the (imaginary) ones who hanker after it's golden days.
And, like the EU after it, it was golden only to a few. Most people in Britain didn't grow rich from it.
And, like the EU after it, it was golden only to a few. Most people in Britain didn't grow rich from it.
And they won't grow rich by leaving the EU, in fact their position will be worse as leave campaigners have pointed out there will be years of pain & suffering and you can guess it won't be the millionaires like Johnson & Farage that suffer.
And they won't grow rich by leaving the EU, in fact their position will be worse as leave campaigners have pointed out there will be years of pain & suffering and you can guess it won't be the millionaires like Johnson & Farage that suffer.
Perhaps they aren't worried about growing rich, but voted for other things that I've mentioned many times, but Remainers don't get because they only think about finance.
We are part of a Commonwealth of Nations generally sharing a common language, common legal traditions, usually drive on the left and who fought with us in WWII and didn't surrender. Indeed many of them still have the Queen as Head of State.
There is a lot to build on as these are growing nations where the future is - Malaysia not Montenegro, India not Italy, Singapore not Slovakia. If you want go build a stronger future go with the future - not the past.
Sharing a common language and traditions is not to be sniffed at.
Nonsence.
We don't have more in common with a group of countries where the majority still criminalise homosexuality and have amongst their cohort some of the worst human rights issues in the world.
Our values are firmly aligned with Western Europe which is the antithesis of the Common Wealth regardless of which dude of the toad they drive on
We don't have more in common with a group of countries where the majority still criminalise homosexuality and have amongst their cohort some of the worst human rights issues in the world.
Our values are firmly aligned with Western Europe which is the antithesis of the Common Wealth regardless of which dude of the toad they drive on
Perhaps we should re-Empirise them and show them true way.:D
So to paraphrase - the British were superior and unthinking with regard to other countries for several hundred years, but we stopped it in the end so it's all good?
That is not paraphrasing at all it is complete misunderstanding. The strength of the Empire was its ability to respond to the wishes of the people of Britain through democratic processes. That does not mean it behaved with altruism at every turn it did not, it behaved despicably at times however that behaviour could be tempered eventually by British public opinion and through parliament. Contrast that with other Empires throughout history, some very recent, and most of those behaved despicably at all times and public opinion counted for nought.
I gave an example of India and although the attitude is of the times it is interesting that when power was granted to the British through the local ruler in many States the British got on with the business of building roads, houses and providing irrigation and drainage whilst the ruler carried on with his hunting and studies. If you wish perfection in an Empire you will not find it if you wish to find one of the least dictatorial and overbearing then it is in that group you will find the British Empire. Wishing to have a lack of arrogance as well is just asking too much and never to be found in any Empire.
We are part of a Commonwealth of Nations generally sharing a common language, common legal traditions, usually drive on the left and who fought with us in WWII and didn't surrender. Indeed many of them still have the Queen as Head of State.
There is a lot to build on as these are growing nations where the future is - Malaysia not Montenegro, India not Italy, Singapore not Slovakia. If you want go build a stronger future go with the future - not the past.
Sharing a common language and traditions is not to be sniffed at.
That's what we were doing in Europe - isn't hankering after linking up with WW2 allies and former colonies going back to the past?
That's what we were doing in Europe - isn't hankering after linking up with WW2 allies and former colonies going back to the past?
To a point it is - but not in the open handed fashion of the past. OK, the brutality has gone, but subterfuge certainly hasn't. The EU is an undemocratically governed political union, initially portrayed as a 'trade bloc', but from the outset, has been targetting the creation of the USSE. The majority of 'essentials' for the birth of this powerful federation are now in place - Parliament; Currency; EU citizenship - foreign embassies; freedom of movement of peoples, removal of many borders etc. - and of course, the calls for closer and closer unions are getting louder and louder.
That isn't going back to the past - it is endeavouring to shape the future by building a unified Europe - or at least a significant portion of it - and it it still expanding.
Whether we citizens wish for that or not!
That is not paraphrasing at all it is complete misunderstanding. The strength of the Empire was its ability to respond to the wishes of the people of Britain through democratic processes. That does not mean it behaved with altruism at every turn it did not, it behaved despicably at times however that behaviour could be tempered eventually by British public opinion and through parliament. Contrast that with other Empires throughout history, some very recent, and most of those behaved despicably at all times and public opinion counted for nought.
I gave an example of India and although the attitude is of the times it is interesting that when power was granted to the British through the local ruler in many States the British got on with the business of building roads, houses and providing irrigation and drainage whilst the ruler carried on with his hunting and studies. If you wish perfection in an Empire you will not find it if you wish to find one of the least dictatorial and overbearing then it is in that group you will find the British Empire. Wishing to have a lack of arrogance as well is just asking too much and never to be found in any Empire.
The strength of the empire was based on many facets, the will of the people was not the mainstay, especially as democracy for the British people only became a reality after 'The representation of the people act in 1928'.
Well see you have it all a little askew. The 'voluntary' entering into as regards Heath and the Tories was never stated to be the case. 'We will negotiate no more no less'.
New Labour were elected on the basis of a referendum on the EU Constitution. The polls predicted a catastrophic defeat for the Europhiles so we did not get it. It was our elected representatives who adopted that 'voluntary' position but expressly against the wishes of the people as the polls in the early seventies also indicate.
Many Indian States in the Empire actually had heads of states who voluntarily entered into agreements with the British. It was the British that ended slavery in India, as well as many of the much more barbaric cultural proclivities and it was the British that closed off Zanzibar where annually tens of thousands of slaves were shipped each year after delivery by Arab slave traders. The Empire was not all good but nor was it all bad, it was a product of the times and in many respects was more enlightened than the times.
Your example of the Mau Mau is an interesting one and the bad treatment in the camps was the subject of parliamentary debate and censure and the Hola Camp atrocities provided Enoch Powell the opportunity to make what some regard as one of the finest speeches in Parliamentary history. The prevarication of British Governments is normally overcome by those in Parliament putting the case of the British public. It was true in Kenya and it was true during the Boer War and the Black and Tan excesses in Ireland.
The British Empire has done bad things it is the British people that normally brought that Empire to account and stopped the bad. Back to the Mau Mau one has to remember that the administration at the time was trying to stop a brutal uprising by rebels killing many British settlers and many more other people from African groups. Rape, torture and mutilation were the hallmarks of the uprising. That does not excuse but it helps to explain and that is what made Powell's speech so powerful.
It's not actually worth my time to engage with this level of nonsense.
In particular with someone who uses British response to an unprising to justify widespread British atrocities. Powell's speech suggested it would be a betrayal of England's colonial mission if authorities tried to evade responsibility for the Mau Mau massacre. Over 50 years on, the British government is still trying to avoid responsibility for the torture of Kenyans in similar camps during the 1950s.
"Why does the British elite, and not the French and German ones, believe they do not need the EU? The first reason is their rose-tinted view of Britain’s history. There is always a disjuncture between the way a country sees itself and how others perceive it, but this disjuncture is especially large in Britain’s case. Britain did not face the need to regain legitimacy in the same way as Germany did after the war, but there are more similarities than most Britons are prepared to admit. Too many see Britain as a beacon of democracy and liberty. Too few are aware that the country’s colonial history means that much of the rest of the world is more ambivalent – and that Britain is less trusted and admired – than they imagine.
"The emphasis that many Brexiters place on the Commonwealth illustrates this. It is notable that so many former British colonies are happy to be members of such a club, but that is perhaps because they see the club differently from many Britons. India is a member, but sees no justification for privileged economic relations with Britain, as illustrated by the Indian government’s rather bemused response to Britain’s clumsy emphasis on the two countries’ shared history as a reason for some kind of special economic relationship. Nor do the Indians, or any other Commonwealth country, see Britain as leading the organisation in the way many British appear to."
I suspect Bremainers will be grieving at leaving the EU empire.
Yes I have never understood their masochism at wanting to be a province of Greater Germany. Still they have a nice flag and tunes by Beethoven to parade to. It would be nice if Leni Riefenstahl was still around for the publicity filming. Hey ho...
Comments
We are part of a Commonwealth of Nations generally sharing a common language, common legal traditions, usually drive on the left and who fought with us in WWII and didn't surrender. Indeed many of them still have the Queen as Head of State.
There is a lot to build on as these are growing nations where the future is - Malaysia not Montenegro, India not Italy, Singapore not Slovakia. If you want go build a stronger future go with the future - not the past.
Sharing a common language and traditions is not to be sniffed at.
Some Commonwealth countries have their own language and the English spoken is not the same as that in the UK. As for traditions - what traditions? A spot of tea when the cricket is called off?
Add to that the simple geographical location that makes business in their area of the world preferable.
Well see you have it all a little askew. The 'voluntary' entering into as regards Heath and the Tories was never stated to be the case. 'We will negotiate no more no less'.
New Labour were elected on the basis of a referendum on the EU Constitution. The polls predicted a catastrophic defeat for the Europhiles so we did not get it. It was our elected representatives who adopted that 'voluntary' position but expressly against the wishes of the people as the polls in the early seventies also indicate.
Many Indian States in the Empire actually had heads of states who voluntarily entered into agreements with the British. It was the British that ended slavery in India, as well as many of the much more barbaric cultural proclivities and it was the British that closed off Zanzibar where annually tens of thousands of slaves were shipped each year after delivery by Arab slave traders. The Empire was not all good but nor was it all bad, it was a product of the times and in many respects was more enlightened than the times.
Your example of the Mau Mau is an interesting one and the bad treatment in the camps was the subject of parliamentary debate and censure and the Hola Camp atrocities provided Enoch Powell the opportunity to make what some regard as one of the finest speeches in Parliamentary history. The prevarication of British Governments is normally overcome by those in Parliament putting the case of the British public. It was true in Kenya and it was true during the Boer War and the Black and Tan excesses in Ireland.
The British Empire has done bad things it is the British people that normally brought that Empire to account and stopped the bad. Back to the Mau Mau one has to remember that the administration at the time was trying to stop a brutal uprising by rebels killing many British settlers and many more other people from African groups. Rape, torture and mutilation were the hallmarks of the uprising. That does not excuse but it helps to explain and that is what made Powell's speech so powerful.
So to paraphrase - the British were superior and unthinking with regard to other countries for several hundred years, but we stopped it in the end so it's all good?
There is no comparison. Most countries in the British Empire were invaded or colonised by Britain : the EU is a voluntary economic and political union between partners (every country who is in it applied for membership).
Anachronistic views. It was fine, then, for countries who thought themselves more civilised than others to impose that civilisation whether wanted or not.
It wasn't just Britain - France, Belgium, Italy all did it. The British were better at it, that's all.
Actually the attitude persists. The mess in the Middle East now is the result of the Americans and their allies imposing Western ideals of democracy on other countries.
But people who dwell on the evilness of the British Empire are just as much fixated on the past as the (imaginary) ones who hanker after it's golden days.
And, like the EU after it, it was golden only to a few. Most people in Britain didn't grow rich from it.
And they won't grow rich by leaving the EU, in fact their position will be worse as leave campaigners have pointed out there will be years of pain & suffering and you can guess it won't be the millionaires like Johnson & Farage that suffer.
Perhaps they aren't worried about growing rich, but voted for other things that I've mentioned many times, but Remainers don't get because they only think about finance.
Nonsence.
We don't have more in common with a group of countries where the majority still criminalise homosexuality and have amongst their cohort some of the worst human rights issues in the world.
Our values are firmly aligned with Western Europe which is the antithesis of the Common Wealth regardless of which dude of the toad they drive on
Perhaps we should re-Empirise them and show them true way.:D
This is the problem with things like empire. If you take control by pointing a gun, preaching tolerance and civility falls on deaf ears.
You could be on to something there.
Of course, the preachers of tolerance tend to think it's only the things they're tolerant about which everyone else should be tolerant about as well.
For other things they're as intolerant as everyone else.
So it's really selective tolerance which is so annoying for those preached at.
Try telling that to the people of Zimbabwe.
That is not paraphrasing at all it is complete misunderstanding. The strength of the Empire was its ability to respond to the wishes of the people of Britain through democratic processes. That does not mean it behaved with altruism at every turn it did not, it behaved despicably at times however that behaviour could be tempered eventually by British public opinion and through parliament. Contrast that with other Empires throughout history, some very recent, and most of those behaved despicably at all times and public opinion counted for nought.
I gave an example of India and although the attitude is of the times it is interesting that when power was granted to the British through the local ruler in many States the British got on with the business of building roads, houses and providing irrigation and drainage whilst the ruler carried on with his hunting and studies. If you wish perfection in an Empire you will not find it if you wish to find one of the least dictatorial and overbearing then it is in that group you will find the British Empire. Wishing to have a lack of arrogance as well is just asking too much and never to be found in any Empire.
Yep very sad I bet the people wish for the days of Rhodesia back
Independence and straight into the arms of a Tyrant.
Your example kinda proves my point.
That's what we were doing in Europe - isn't hankering after linking up with WW2 allies and former colonies going back to the past?
To a point it is - but not in the open handed fashion of the past. OK, the brutality has gone, but subterfuge certainly hasn't. The EU is an undemocratically governed political union, initially portrayed as a 'trade bloc', but from the outset, has been targetting the creation of the USSE. The majority of 'essentials' for the birth of this powerful federation are now in place - Parliament; Currency; EU citizenship - foreign embassies; freedom of movement of peoples, removal of many borders etc. - and of course, the calls for closer and closer unions are getting louder and louder.
That isn't going back to the past - it is endeavouring to shape the future by building a unified Europe - or at least a significant portion of it - and it it still expanding.
Whether we citizens wish for that or not!
In particular with someone who uses British response to an unprising to justify widespread British atrocities. Powell's speech suggested it would be a betrayal of England's colonial mission if authorities tried to evade responsibility for the Mau Mau massacre. Over 50 years on, the British government is still trying to avoid responsibility for the torture of Kenyans in similar camps during the 1950s.
www.cer.eu/insights/british-and-their-exceptionalism
EXCERPT:
"Why does the British elite, and not the French and German ones, believe they do not need the EU? The first reason is their rose-tinted view of Britain’s history. There is always a disjuncture between the way a country sees itself and how others perceive it, but this disjuncture is especially large in Britain’s case. Britain did not face the need to regain legitimacy in the same way as Germany did after the war, but there are more similarities than most Britons are prepared to admit. Too many see Britain as a beacon of democracy and liberty. Too few are aware that the country’s colonial history means that much of the rest of the world is more ambivalent – and that Britain is less trusted and admired – than they imagine.
"The emphasis that many Brexiters place on the Commonwealth illustrates this. It is notable that so many former British colonies are happy to be members of such a club, but that is perhaps because they see the club differently from many Britons. India is a member, but sees no justification for privileged economic relations with Britain, as illustrated by the Indian government’s rather bemused response to Britain’s clumsy emphasis on the two countries’ shared history as a reason for some kind of special economic relationship. Nor do the Indians, or any other Commonwealth country, see Britain as leading the organisation in the way many British appear to."
No that was the USSR/Russia.
Oh, that will flush out our resident communist!
Yes I have never understood their masochism at wanting to be a province of Greater Germany. Still they have a nice flag and tunes by Beethoven to parade to. It would be nice if Leni Riefenstahl was still around for the publicity filming. Hey ho...