Colonialism

Remove all ads!

I see that Aldeth's topic is spiralling horribly out of topic so I'll redirect the discussion of the colonial history here.

The locals were hardly happy to be under British rule. India had quite a successful culture before Europeans came and made a mess of it, Portugese first, the rest closely afterwards. They did not want your culture but you choose to force it upon them. It's not like they voted to become a part of the British Empire. Also it was never the aim of the British to make any natives fullfledged citizen with all the same rights as those who live on the mainland have. After all that was the cause of the American Revolution, equall rights which the British were not exactly willing to give.

Oh spare me. There were numerous colonial uprisings within the British Empire and only when it was clear that the British could not supress these uprisings they retreated leaving the countries in the hands of military dictators and corrupt governments. If the British would have ever actually intended to liberate the colonies they would have included the natives in decision making and adminstration. That way the disasters of today might have been avoided.

So why were the Canadian, Australian and US governments any different? Well do you see any of the natives ruling the country today? I thought not. The same could have been said of South Africa up until Nelson Mandela became the first Black president of that country and the apartheid system was once and for all abolished.

 

That was hardly my point though, was it? I didn't say they welcomed us with open arms. I was replying to your idea that instead of progress, we brought destruction. I was just proving that it wasn't true and cited India as an example of a place we improved and brought progress too. That place would likely have fell into a 3rd world country without our interference. We helped build the place and turned their pathetic army into a pretty effective fighting force.

I'm not being funny, but if you really wanted to get stuck into the British empire, you're choosing the wrong whack-stick.

Err, like what? No, honestly, I'm not saying you're wrong as I might be way off, but besides the American revolution, how many other uprisings of note can you name? Mahatma's peaceful campaigning could hardly be called an uprising. You cited Africa as a prime example, what uprising happened there? The only one I can think of was the Zulu wars of the late 19th century, which hardly falls under a 'corrupt dictator' tag. That was a rebellious tribal leader, who was dealt with by 139 men. I'm sure the leaders at home were quaking with that one .

Wait, hold on, are you trying to say that we installed their governments? They were quite capable of electing their own leaders. So long as we could collect their tax, we didn't really give a poo poo who they decided to have in charge.

 

Of course, the Yankees starting a war to stop the South seceeding isn't as despicable as British colonialism, is it?

Bah! We'll take our damn empire back, one day. Then we'll see...

 

The Mughal and Maratha Empires were quite powerful in its time up until their disintegration. Without the internal strife it's difficult to imagine that the British would have considered victory in India worth the costs. The British played quite brilliantly with the Indian politics to gain themselves the supremacy over that land. Also India was in a better position than the African colonies in that various smaller kings were given considerable freedom to rule the land as long as they paid their taxes.

It's true that colonialism did not allways bring destruction, just in most cases.

 

The Maharattas and Sultans in India were not very powerful at all. British armies beat much bigger Indian armies time and again. Look up the Battle of Assaye for an example there. They basically had loads of men but didn't train them. They even took in French experts to train their armies for battle and recruited other European generals and leaders to command their troops. None of it worked, because they lacked the central structure that we could, and did, bring.

I'm by no means saying we were angels (hell no, far, far from it) but by and large we brought progress to our colonies and helped them. If we didn't we wouldn't have become the biggest empire the world has ever seen. To get that tag, you had to know how to play your cards right with your colonies.

If you really want to get stuck into us, use something like Copenhagen 1807 as an example (but even that can be argued as being an harsh but necessary step ).

 

What about the Treaty of Waitangi then, Mr British Colonial History Expert? What's your view on that wonderful piece of imperial documentation that continues to cause drama (and make plenty of money for lawyers) to this day.

 

Yeah, but the danes never took it that bad compared to what the Germans did to them some fifty years later

 

What do you want me to say about that? From what little I know there, it's just a signed treaty that's been misinterpreted by various people and got spiraled out of control. It's insignificant in todays world anyway, really.

I'm afraid I don't know much about all that. If loads of life's weren't lost in battles, I'm afraid I'm a bit sketchy. Rather bloodthirsty and macabre of me really.

 

You pompous clown! It might be insignificant to ivory tower imperialists like you, but it's still a major factor in race relations in New Zealand in the 21st century, so it's not insignificant for everyone.

And we certainly had land wars in New Zealand in the 19th century. Not sure if they met your body count threshold for attention, but I'm sure the people who were killed in them thought they were pretty bloody.

On the other hand, if the British hadn't conned the Maori into letting them take over New Zealand, I wouldn't be here, so I guess the Empire contributed at least one good thing to the world......

 

The same sort of huboo that the Australians kicked up about their independence? You know the one, where they moaned and moaned so we gave them a national poll and they chose to stay part of the commonwealth. Independence is overrated

You're better off with us anyway mate. By the sounds of it, that Treaty was an absolute masterstroke

 

What about it? What would you like to discuss? The bit that was lost in translation?


Anyway, complaints baout the British Empire are futile, because what was the alternative?

Independance was not an option for any country. France, germany, Portugal, Spain, Russia, all were sniffing round for other places to dominate. Japan, even Holland.

If not a British colony, you could be a German or French one. Potato Potarto.

 

Oh yeah, we'd all be French in New Zealand if it wasn't for a freak storm that blew Dumont D'Urville off course and let James Cook arrive here before him. Not sure why Britain was so keen on taking over New Zealand though. What was the point of bothering? Was it all just a pride thing? They can't have made any money out of it.

 

Nope, but we got some good opponents for Rugby. Notice how all the colonies are good at our sports? Well, there's an advantage for you right there. If the French had colonised, you'd all be playing petanque.

Praise us

 

And you'd all be in touch with your feminine side .

 

thats cause when the english bombed us and stole our navy, we where the first town to be rocket bombed. hurrah for us

 

@Barmy: I got two words for you...Jallianwala Bagh...

Some interesting reading...

British Raj

Here's some choice quotes:

So yeah...prosperity and development?? I'd say you guys set us back by a couple of hundred years...

Edit: Updated some information

[ December 04, 2006, 14:19: Message edited by: Faraaz ]

 

Except that it never happened. The Confederate States started the Amercain Civil War at Charlestown, SC, April 1861, when they surrounded and fired on Fort Sumter.

 

Oh, come on Faraaz. Indians complaining about Jallianwala Bagh is the same as the Irish complaining about Bloody Sunday.

When you put it like 'unarmed people were killed' it sounds absolutely disgusting. But as is typical with these kinds of things, that's over-simplifying the matter. Many unprovoked attacks on British/European Indians, arson attacks and other incidents led up to that. Tensions were high and when a massive crowd gathered around asking for the release of some terrorists, and started getting a bit lairy, the soldiers did what they had to, to prevent an even worse incident.

 

Here's a letter that was presented to John-Paul II when he visited Peru...

"John-Paul II, we, Andean and American Indians, have decided to take advantage of your visit to return to you your Bible, since in five centuries it has not given us love, peace or justice. Please take back your Bible and give it back to our oppressors, because they need its moral teachings more than we do. Ever since the arrival of Christopher Columbus a culture, a language, religion and values which belong to Europe have been imposed on Latin America by force. The Bible came to us as part of the imposed colonial transformation. It was the ideological weapon of this colonialist assault. The Spanish sword which attacked and murdered the bodies of Indians by day and night became the cross which attacked the Indian soul."

A popular saying amognst black South Africans is:
"When the white man came to our country he had the Bible, and we had the land. The white man said to us, 'Let us pray'. After the prayer, the white man had the land, and we had the Bible."

 

Okay, so I'll list the places that were ****ed over by British colonialism (you'll note I don't call it 'your' colonialism, since you weren't alive when it happened), and you can list the places it helped. I have a feeling the bad will outweigh the good, but let's see.

North America -- screwed by british colonialism
India -- see above (unless you want to argue that creating a cold-war situation with nukes and all is a good thing)
Mid East -- see above
South Africa -- see above
Oceania -- see above

So, what places did british colonialism help out?