GreenLeader | 03 Dec 2014 5:10 a.m. PST |
I am currently working in Iraq, and spoke to an old gentleman the other day who was making himself a cup of tea. He told me that the British introduced the drinking of tea to Iraq, and thinking to make a joke of it, I said: "well, we're not all bad then, are we?". He took this very seriously and said that the Iraqi people were very fond of the British as we had 'freed' them from 'those bastard Turks' – obviously back in WW1. He went on to explain how his grandmother used to always make them afternoon tea 'in the British style'. Not the sort of thing one probably expects to hear and certainly not the view of those British hand-wringers who are frightfully ashamed of the Empire. It got me thinking how there are always so many different ways that history can be viewed. |
cosmicbank | 03 Dec 2014 5:53 a.m. PST |
Just like the French who live in Normandy feel a little different about the USA than the rest of France. I am fear the loss of history and the lack of teaching history will have a real cost to the future. That cost poorly designed war games. |
McWong73 | 03 Dec 2014 6:44 a.m. PST |
Swings and roundabouts GL. My in laws are Lebanese arabs, and they have the most wonderful memories and impressions of Australian soldiers and their generosity such that they emigrated here in the late 40's, and they could have gone to the US as grandma was an American by birth. These memories invariably live on, it's how we're sorting out our own memories that causes us grief. There is plenty of things to feel guilty about for any former empire, it's ensuring that we learn to not let go of the memories or guilt, but the angst. |
Legion 4 | 03 Dec 2014 8:57 a.m. PST |
The situaiton as I see it. Is many people don't study or understand histroy … of their countries' own or others … Do bad things happen in war ? You bet x 10 !! But "good" things happen as well. And we all could tell stories of examples both ways. My Grandparents didn't come to the US until the very late 1800s. My father served in the 90th ID in the ETO, in WWII. Was highly decorated with, CIB, S/Star, B/Star, P/Heart. And I served as an active duty Infantry Officer for over a deacade in my youth. In a number of units, including the 101 and 2ID … So I firmly believe, we earned our place here as "Americans" … Many times some talk about what happened in US histroy before my ancestors got here. Were there many tragic things that happened in US history ? Yes, as well as many good things. As I often have often quoted on TMP, "One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist." Preceptions and predilections form most, if not all our beliefs, etc. … What does amuses me is when some news channels do the "man-on-the-street" interviews with regular citizens. Plus what amuses/amazes me more so is when the news media talks college students … In both cases, it scares me how little many of these Americans know … about anything !! Other than who won the game last night or what JLow, Kim and Khloe are doing … We're Doomed !!!!!! |
Garand | 03 Dec 2014 9:13 a.m. PST |
Plus what amuses/amazes me more so is when the news media talks college students … In both cases, it scares me how little many of these Americans know … about anything !! Other than who won the game last night or what JLow, Kim and Khloe are doing … huh? We're Doomed !!!!!! I'd wager that the news media selectively edits their coverage to highlight the idiots. After all, someone that answers succinctly and accurately is not interesting. Damon. |
Weasel | 03 Dec 2014 9:17 a.m. PST |
A friend of mine's Croatian grandpa never spoke ill of Hitler. Not because Croatian grandpa was a Nazi, but because Hitler didn't like the Serbs. The world is a complicated place :) |
Zargon | 03 Dec 2014 10:23 a.m. PST |
Yes you are, shakes head, thinks about it a bit as american film and media is disseminated world wide, realising this understands I'm doomed too. Oh well. Cheers from someone who knows the English are not liked in some places too. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 03 Dec 2014 2:20 p.m. PST |
Look at any colonial situation and you'll find people who preferred the time before 'independence.' In some cases, it may even be the majority. |
tuscaloosa | 03 Dec 2014 4:15 p.m. PST |
"Not the sort of thing one probably expects to hear and certainly not the view of those British hand-wringers who are frightfully ashamed of the Empire." Sure, because he was Sunni. And the Brits took the three vilayets of Kurdish Mosul, Sunni Baghdad, and Shi'a Basrah, and combined them into one country, and gave it all to the Sunni. So of course the Sunni liked it. Was it sustainable? No. So don't fall all over congratulating yourself what a great job the Brits did with colonial administration. It was divide and conquer, and led to tears and bloodshed almost everywhere. |
Legion 4 | 03 Dec 2014 4:47 p.m. PST |
I'd wager that the news media selectively edits their coverage to highlight the idiots. After all, someone that answers succinctly and accurately is not interesting. Of course … but I've found similar in my own interactions with many of the public … |
Legion 4 | 03 Dec 2014 4:51 p.m. PST |
Yes you are, shakes head, thinks about it a bit as american film and media is disseminated world wide, realising this understands I'm doomed too. Oh well. Cheers from someone who knows the English are not liked in some places too.
Amazingly, many US movies do well overseas. Of course many of those viewers think everything they see in the movies in the US is true ! |
Glengarry5 | 03 Dec 2014 7:05 p.m. PST |
My mother was visiting my sister's family in Normandy. She was talking to a Frenchwoman who was complaining on and on about those awful English people until my mother (formerly from the US but now Canadian) ventured to point out that the English had helped the French in World War 1 and 2. The woman said: "Oh yes, but that was just recently." |
Legion 4 | 04 Dec 2014 2:53 p.m. PST |
What was she referring to ? Waterloo, Agincourt, Crecy ? |
Adam name not long enough | 04 Dec 2014 3:47 p.m. PST |
|
Blutarski | 04 Dec 2014 5:28 p.m. PST |
"Of course many of those viewers think everything they see in the movies in the US is true !" ….. Oh so true. About 20 years ago I was visiting some commercial clients in Hull, England. My wife had accompanied me on this particular trip and, while I was wrapped up in meetings, she went off to see the sights in the Hull city center. As it happened, some fellow chose that particular day to walk into a downtown pub with a sawed-off shotgun and blow the head off of a pub patron. When news of this reached the company office, everyone became very concerned for my wife's welfare. In an effort to make me feel better, one of the secretaries said to me – "Well, at least your wife must be used to this sort of thing, since they happen all the time in America." B |
GreenLeader | 04 Dec 2014 9:55 p.m. PST |
tuscaloosa Actually, he is a Shia from Basra. But either way, please don't let your knee-jerk assumptions get in the way of a good old anti-British Empire rant – I am sure you know far more about the situation (and, more importantly, how he should feel about it) than he does. I only wish you'd been on hand to set him straight, and advise the ignorant fool that history is not complicated, and there are not different ways of looking at things. |
Supercilius Maximus | 05 Dec 2014 6:03 a.m. PST |
Green Leader – You missed the fact that his example of "divide and conquerr" was actually an amalgamation, ie the creation of a multi-cultural society (which we're always told is "a good thing"). Your experience mirrors that of English comedienne Victoria Wood whose 2007 TV series "Victoria's Empire" involved her travelling through former colonies and meeting people who remembered British rule. Despite expecting hostility, she was met with friendship and positive memories in most cases, which obviously surprised her. |
Gennorm | 05 Dec 2014 6:35 a.m. PST |
It certainly had its bad side but the Empire must have done a lot right otherwise we wouldn't have the Commonwealth. |
tuscaloosa | 05 Dec 2014 8:41 a.m. PST |
"But either way, please don't let your knee-jerk assumptions get in the way of a good old anti-British Empire rant" If the locals liked you running their affairs so much, why did they fight so hard to kick you out? |
GreenLeader | 05 Dec 2014 8:45 a.m. PST |
As I said, I only wish you'd been on hand to set him straight, and advise the ignorant fool that history is not complicated, and there are not different ways of looking at things. |
tuscaloosa | 05 Dec 2014 8:55 a.m. PST |
Absolutely, I would love to meet him, so he could explain how the Iraqi people tried so hard to get the Brits to stay, and at long last – reluctantly – British forces left for home, with crowds of sorrowful Iraqis lamenting their departure. I think what you've fallen victim to is assuming that someone who tells you what you want to hear is actually telling the truth. But there was a lot of that involved in both the British and American interventionist/colonial experiences, so you're in good company. |
GreenLeader | 05 Dec 2014 9:04 a.m. PST |
Yes – you are right again – he must have been lying through his teeth to me. Afterall, it is the only logical explanation and you – thousands of miles away behind your keyboard and despite being utterly wrong about the branch of Islam he follows – clearly have greater insight into his thinking than I have, interacting with him on a daily basis. I cannot thank you enough for setting me straight too. What a poor, naive fool I am to have taken this man at his word. Can I tap into your superior intellect again, and ask: when my Egyptian colleagues use the Arabic phrase which translates as 'to take the English path' (meaning: 'to do the right thing') – are they all lying to me too? When I was playing a prank on an Iraqi colleague the other day, and he cheerfully said to me: 'no – no – I know you are joking – you cannot lie to me – you are British, not an Arab!' was he trying to deceive me too? Am I the victim of some massive conspiracy? Please, help me, oh wise one! |
OSchmidt | 05 Dec 2014 10:56 a.m. PST |
People believe what they believe and that is that. I remember fifteen years ago in grad school I was in a course in Middle Eastern History. There were two Indian girls in it. Both of these were so obviously and clearly "Children of the Raj" it was amazing. Beautiful very white skin, who spoke without accents at all, and hated the British Rule in India and condemned them with every expletive they could. They were of course richer than God. They were going on about all the sins of the British when I said satirically and sarcasticly. "Yes, if only we Germans had been able to free you from the British, we would have done much better." To this they enthusiastically agreed. "Oh yes we could have gotton along very well with the Nazi's." In a different story, I have a friend who is of Phillipene-Italian heritage. His features and coloring bear this out. He's the biggest fan of Kaiserine Germany ever, believes Germany was pretty much heaven on earth. speaks German fluently, is a master scholar, a complete claccisist in Music and can play several instrument. He's no Nazi, just an ardent and enthusiastic fan of the German cultural heritage. And now we come to the best. My own mother. My mother was Czech. My father Austrian. Talk about Schizophrenia! All Czechs are schizophrenic. There are Czechs who have Czech names who thinks Germans are the best thing since sliced bread. Considers German culture the best,tolerates Bohemians, but hates Slovaks, Moravians, Ruthenians, and all the other scum of eastern Europe. This is my mother, has a Czech name, lionizes the triumphs of the Czechs but somehow thinks they are Germans. Other Cech's have German names and are the opposite, thinking Germans are lower than snail snot and lionize Czech culture and folk lore. and music. No lie though one of these who I knew loved Wagner but said that he was secretly Czech. Both hated the Jews, that is until my mother went to work for one, found him a perfectly wonderful and kind man and then turned completely around. My father was Austrian, came from Germany, hated order, regimentation, the gloomy inventiveness of Germans, considered them Philistines, didn't want to work in his fathers business (family had more money than God) wanted to be a musician. He loved German Culutre, hated Austrians, Bavarians, Rhinelanders (he came from the Rhineland) loved Wagner, Loved the Jews, hated Mozart and Hayden, but he played them fabulously. He murdelized Wagner. I could go on. The point is that people are what they are and they each make up their own world according to their own ends. Sometimes it's grotesque, sometimes it's crazy, sometimes it's hilarious, sometimes it's tragic. Everyone, especially in America makes up who and what they are as they go along. And my parents who were both educated people had no more than a smattering of the truth of history than the teenagers today. Much of it was a snippet here, a snippet there, and the rest was rumor and innuendo, fairy tales and what they'd like to believe. Don't ever look for logic in the human mind. No one thinks logically-- ever! They are ruled by passions and emotions and fears and hopes. |
tuscaloosa | 05 Dec 2014 1:14 p.m. PST |
"Am I the victim of some massive conspiracy? Please, help me, oh wise one!" Do you believe that the second-hand anecdotal account you relayed has any real relevance as a commentary on the British Empire's role in history? If your point is "it wasn't all bad", then of course you're right. Nothing is all bad. If your point is that the British Empire was a kind, benevolent structure designed only to help and uplift the backward locals and give them fond memories to brighten their old age, nope. |
Apache 6 | 05 Dec 2014 2:45 p.m. PST |
While the British Empire was not "designed only to help and uplift the backward locals…" they were far more benign then many of their contemporaries. I've been to several former British colonies (beyond just the Commonwealth Nations) which still use (embrace?) British Empire 'infrastructure and law' and I've spoken to many Nationals from those countries who respect and admire the English/British. |
GreenLeader | 05 Dec 2014 7:46 p.m. PST |
Come now, Apache 6 – surely you realise that they were all lying to you!? And, furthermore, we have now learned that the feelings and thoughts of people in former colonies are of no relevance in any case! What on earth do they know about anything!? I have travelled to, lived in, and worked in 72 countries (including 30 in Africa) and have heard many, many such things too – but now I know it was all lies – the scales have fallen from my eyes… and all because some guy on a wargames site declares it thus. 'Do you believe that the second-hand anecdotal account you relayed has any real relevance as a commentary on the British Empire's role in history?' No – not any more! Now I know that it is utterly pointless speaking with and listening to the people in the countries I work in, and that their real-life experiences and memories are all fabricated and designed to deceive. In future, I will only listen to some random fellow behind a keyboard in America. |
cwlinsj | 05 Dec 2014 9:30 p.m. PST |
Tea and tea culture existed in Iraq long before the English. Tea was introduced by traders from the Silk Road, the Mongols and by Arab traders to Indonesia. The Arabs have traded with China and India for thousands of years. That tea is called "chai" in Arabic shows the Chinese name influence, and as cardamom spice is often added to their tea, the Indian. |
capt jimmi | 05 Dec 2014 10:13 p.m. PST |
? Parliamentary Government, Civil Service, a system of Common Law, Universities and public education, communications infrastructure, trains that run on time, development of skilled industry (eg steel and shipbuilding), hospitals, public hygeine and water, public sports (eg. a day at the Cricket) …… …but what have the English ever REALLY done for us ? |
capt jimmi | 05 Dec 2014 10:29 p.m. PST |
actually … there was that brief moment when for a few decades they formed the largest drug (opium) distribution syndicate the planet has ever seen, and enforced their right to use opium as a currency for the exchange of goods by sailing a few cannon-armed gunboats 'upriver .. and firing point-blank at protesting (Chinese) civilians… there was that … and a little before that when they competed (successfully) against the French (and rest of Europe) for control of the African trade…ie; slaves and other 'raw materials' there was that too.. Maybe there is often two sides to complicated stories ? |
GreenLeader | 05 Dec 2014 11:05 p.m. PST |
cwlinsj Thats a very interesting point, but 'the Arabs' is not quite the same as 'Iraq'. I was chatting to another Iraqi yesterday who told me that coffee was introduced to Iraq by the Turks and tea by the British – presumably the current style / culture / presentation / way they are drunk etc, rather than the raw materials / how they had previously been enjoyed. There are many different ways of drinking both tea and coffee – try ordering a cup of tea in Alabama and see what you get, and 'coffee' means something very different in Mauritania than in Manchester. When I worked in Algeria many years ago, the Algerians gently teased one of my Egyptian colleagues for drinking tea, rather than coffee like they did, calling him 'an Englishman' – he smilingly retorted that he'd rather be 'an Englishman' than 'a Frenchman' like them. I do not think one should think of 'the Arabs' as a homogeneous lot. Though we seem to have verged off a little, the point of relating the story was not to claim that the British Empire was wonderful in every way – I merely found it interesting that this gentleman's family seemed to consider the arrival of the British as a 'liberation' from the Ottoman Empire, something which I doubt many people would consider it as today. Indeed, I think one could find dozens of similar examples of the arrival of the Colonial power being welcomed as – though perhaps far from perfect by today's standards – it was often a good deal better than what it replaced.
capt jimmi
'Maybe there is often two sides to complicated stories?' I think you might be onto something there… |
Blutarski | 06 Dec 2014 5:31 a.m. PST |
Indeed. At least two sides, not to mention the difficulty sorting the real history from the propaganda. B |
Supercilius Maximus | 06 Dec 2014 8:37 a.m. PST |
1) The Opium Wars were about more than just opium – they were about free trade and involved the Chinese authorities using crowds of "civilians" to attack and burn warehouses full of British merchants' goods, because they were cheaper and better quality (in much the same way that the original Tea Party destroyed imported tea, not because it was a form of taxation, but because it was undercutting their own smuggled variety). 2) I notice the posters on here are looking at opium with a distinctly 21st Century viewpooint. Whilst there was some contemporary opposition to its misuse, opiates were highly regarded by the vast majority of the medical profession and other educated groups – in the mid-1880s a US Surgeon-General told Congress it should sponsor a daily dose of laudanum to every citizen for its beneficial effects (this speech is even quoted by "Jed Bartlett" in an episode of "The West Wing" – IIRC, the one where he agrees to execute a drug dealer). 3) When one nation rules a quarter of the globe for best part of two centuries in generally less enlightened and much rougher times, any idiot can cherry pick a handful of incidents from across that expanse and time and claim they depict day-to-day life for every inhabitant, even though they were quite patently the exception rather than the rule (if nothing else, there were simply not enough soldiers and officials to maintain control through terror). The only fair and accurate ways to gauge a regime are to compare it (a) to its contemporaries covering a similar amount of territory/population – more or fewer "atrocities"; (b) by what came before and after (the post-independence Indian government committed several Amritsars in its first 50 years – including a much worse one in Amritsar itself – yet only the British version, which was unique in 90 years of imperial rule, is remembered); and (c) how many of its institutions survive and are still seen as the optimum form of governance. Nobody in their right mind would consider the Smith and Mugabe regimes in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe as equally brutal, despite the fact that one denied a substantial group of the populace the vote. The "evil" Iain Smith lived out his days in a small bungalow, with no guards or any other form of protection (not even a gun), and frequently challenged Mugabe to walk down the main street of Harare beside him (sans bodyguards) to see which one of them got shot. |
Lion in the Stars | 06 Dec 2014 11:53 a.m. PST |
Given the crappy accuracy of the (stereo)typical African, I'd be more worried to be Smith than Mugabe. |
Henry Martini | 06 Dec 2014 7:37 p.m. PST |
There were notable exceptions, Supercilius: in 19th century Queensland large-scale active oppression by the army wasn't necessary; settlers and police managed well enough – and officials contributed mainly by their indifference to the destructive consequences of the imperial land-grab. The colony was widely regarded by humanitarian commentators as a blight on, and embarrassment to, the empire. |
GreenLeader | 06 Dec 2014 7:54 p.m. PST |
Supercilius Maximus What an excellent post. As you rightly say, anyone can pick a couple of unpleasant, though isolated, incidents from a two hundred year time period and simply disregard everything else. It comes down to personal opinion if these incidents, which tend to have happen many decades before the height of Empire (eg. the mass murder of Aborigines by British settlers in Tasmania) are out-weighed by the positives. In a similar fashion, it is trendy to bring up Britain's role in the slave trade, but less fashionable to dwell on the reality that slavery is as old as mankind itself, everyone else was also doing it and – most importantly of all – that it was the British Empire which led the way in stamping out this vile practice. And, of course, no one ever mentions the active and essential role of 'non-Europeans' in the trade. There is an excellent quote I recently read. I do not have the book to hand, alas, so cannot quote verbatim, but the quote is from an African chief, speaking after the British relinquished control of the Transvaal back to the Boers in 1881. He basically says that first the Matabele came along, and enslaved his people… then the Boers came along, and did the same… then the British arrived, and they were free. But now that the British are leaving once more, they will suffer again. Of course, one could always simply claim he was lying and that his thoughts on the situation are irrelevant. |
capt jimmi | 06 Dec 2014 11:52 p.m. PST |
@ Henry Martini; nice one ! .. but wouldn't that have been typical pretty much across the whole 'colonial world' ? To use 'SuperMax's three point rule of thumb … then none of the 19C Colonial Powers were that 'nice' ..if we are to continue to speak of complicated history in the crudest and simplest of terms. In your example, as the 19C Queensland settlers slaughtered Aborigines on their way inland and north … they were also stealing islanders (kanakas) from surrounding islands to work as slaves in agriculture (particularly the infant sugar industry). I think here we have the luxury of looking at 18/19C Politics with 21C lenses, and the benefit of a hundred or so years of our 'own history'(as we whitefellas like to remember it) and indeed it seems more than a few TV shows quoted here that are fictional Drama (for entertainment of whitefellas), …not history as such … but as we can see here even in this small simple discussion .. it becomes part of the 'oral tradition' . …ask your typical Australian Aborigine (if you can find one) what they think about the last two hundred and a bit years of 'occupation' by white man… it's not typically positive. None of the 18/19C 'Colonial Powers' were blameless or innocent. Yes it was about "more than just Opium" …. it was about the wholesale subjugation of foreign peoples (we called 'inferior' or 'undeveloped') and control/exploitation of their natural resources (we called it 'free trade') for the ultimate benefit of very very few….by force or guile, ….before the 'other guys' got there first. |
GreenLeader | 07 Dec 2014 1:01 a.m. PST |
But talk of 'wholesale subjugation of foreign peoples' tends to give the impression that such people were enjoying freedom, the rule of law and stable, multi-party democracy before the wicked British arrived. In a Southern African context, for example, it was the arrival of the British which ended the slave trade, gave non-whites their first taste of democracy (through the Cape Qualified Franchise) and a (theoretically) colour-blind rule of law. It was also the British who (one way or another) broke the power of the Zulu and the Matabele Empires, meaning their (black) neighbours no longer had to live in terror, or be subject to slave raids and regular mass murder. None of this strikes one as 'wholesale subjugation' and – for the vast majority of the people concerned, and how ever flawed – was a vast improvement on what had gone before. Why else did so many Southern African kings and chiefs request that the 'wicked' British extend protectorates over their lands? |
Blutarski | 07 Dec 2014 9:28 a.m. PST |
Different times and different cultures mean different mores. The only eternal truth is that, to one degree or another, the strong exploit the weak. That truth makes absolutely no ethnic or racial distinctions. It also bears saying that concepts of exploitation and subjugation are very much in the eye of the beholder. B |
spontoon | 07 Dec 2014 11:31 a.m. PST |
Personally I think any nation which inflicts cricket on another should be castigated for all eternity! |
Henry Martini | 07 Dec 2014 1:20 p.m. PST |
That would have been a Shona chief, GreenLeader. |
capt jimmi | 07 Dec 2014 5:03 p.m. PST |
Cricket ! .. the only game you can play for five days and not get a result. A metaphor of the English Civil service. … yes maybe 'wholesale subjugation' is a bit of a loaded term … but to suggest to call it 'taking control of the population for the purposes of "Free Trade" (of THEIR natural resources)' is a deliberately UN-loaded description. …and assumes a perspective of cultural arrogance which methinks is a major factor why so much suffering (for the 'natives') has followed Colonial adventures. ? Is it true that today's Iraq is still suffering the effects of the poorly considered arbitary territorial divisions imposed by (post-)Colonial powers, so is Afghanistan , and for a long time … so did 'South Africa' which is entirely a European (territorial) concept. (I'm suggesting the Africans at the time thought in terms of 'African tribal areas'..not borders between territories claimed by European powers.) Don't get me wrong ! If I understand correctly … Green Leader's original post on this thread was more in the theme that 'the English don't have to be such apologists for their Colonial history'…and I agree with this entirely ! …even allowing for our modern 20/20 vision-in-hindsight through 21C 'PC' lenses. My first post here was paraphrasing these (english)chaps YouTube link for which I suggest there is "wisdom in humour" here . …however, if we (the 'white guys' of 'ordered good' and 'free trade') don't recognise and learn from our historical mistakes (because that makes us uncomfortable), we will be destined to repeat them …. and we have, and we still are, … and we will never understand 'why they hate us', and why 'we can't fix their problems' . It is much much easier to retire to the 'Cricket Club', and talk to someone 'native' there who will tell us how much they (and their tribe/family/business) have benefitted from Colonial or foreign intervention …and walk away feeling good about oneself. .. I fear this is the 'cherrypicking of history' that we as 'benevolent whitefellas' are too guilty of, and if we don't ask ourselves some pretty tough questions here , we benevolent whitefellas will be paying for this cultural arrogance in blood and treasure for a very long time to come. The last generation (let's say since 1967) of post-WW2 Colonial Power's 'management' of the needs of the "post colonial world" has been an unmitigated disaster…almost "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" |
GreenLeader | 07 Dec 2014 8:03 p.m. PST |
Henry Martini No – the chief who I quoted was not a Shona – as I mentioned, he was based in the Transvaal, not what is now Zimbabwe. (today, however, what used to be the Transvaal is full of Shonas who have fled Mugabe's crackpot regime – just about every waiter, barman, maid and garden 'boy' is a Zimbo these days, whether he/she be Shona or Matabele). Of course, many of the Shona at the time would certainly have felt similarly to be spared the murderous attentions of the Matabele, as would the various tribes in Bechuanaland (the chiefs of whom appealed to the British for a protectorate on several occasions). One only needs to look at the large numbers of black allies who fought with the Rhodesians in 1893 against Lobengula. The list of chiefs who were grateful that the power of the Boers was also finally broken would be even longer. |
GreenLeader | 07 Dec 2014 8:08 p.m. PST |
In regard to the strong always dominating the weak, I don't disagree, but this 'domination' can range from brutal oppression to a more paternal patronism. I always thought this was an interesting quotation: "Instinctively the Englishman is no missionary, no conqueror. He prefers the country to the town, and home to foreign parts. He is rather glad and relieved if only natives will remain natives and strangers strangers, and at a comfortable distance from himself. Yet outwardly he is most hospitable and accepts almost anybody for the time being; he travels and conquers without a settled design, because he has the instinct of exploration. His adventures are all external; they change him so little that he is not afraid of them. He carries his English weather in his heart wherever he goes, and it becomes a cool spot in the desert, and a steady and sane oracle amongst all the deliriums of mankind. Never since the heroic days of Greece has the world had such a sweet, just, boyish master. It will be a black day for the human race when scientific blackguards, conspirators, churls, and fanatics manage to supplant him." George Santayana, 1863-1952 Spanish-American philosopher and man of letters |
Royston Papworth | 07 Dec 2014 11:34 p.m. PST |
Ok firstly all slavery is wrong. However, is the real issue with the British/American Trans-Atlantic slave trade that because us British being British, it was taxed, so, we can see the detail of the trade. We see the numbers involved and the size of a ship that would carry a certain number of 'cargo' and the numbers that did not survive the journey. For the sake of the taxman, all this was recorded and we as C21 people are rightly horrified by it. But, we do not have the same information on the Trans-Saharan slave route and cannot compare the two, so we assume (probably wrongly) that it was not as bad. It is also worth remembering… America's place as one of the focal points of that Trans-Atlantic slave trade That slavery existed in the US after it ended in the British Empire That when the USA colonised the 'West' – the land wasn't empty, it had people living there already. So, do we judge the US of today on how it treated the Indians then? Did the US treat them any better or worse than the Australians treated the Aborigines? History needs to be understood in context and in comparison to other empires, the British Empire was better than most.. |
Blutarski | 08 Dec 2014 4:31 a.m. PST |
Please do correct me if I am wrong on this, but the image of the African slave trade somehow being uniquely and solely an institution and crime of the West is IMO a great falsehood. While the Western powers were without question complicit as "end-users" of slave labor, the parties who captured, enslaved and happily profited by this trade in human chattel were either African tribes themselves, capturing and selling off members of unfriendly or competing tribes, or Moslem slave-trading operation which had been (and are rumored to still be) active in the northern tier of Africa for centuries. The sale of human beings in pre-colonial Africa was big business. B |
GreenLeader | 08 Dec 2014 4:58 a.m. PST |
Blutarski You are not wrong in this. We can all agree that the role of the western powers was disgraceful, but in the great scheme of this age-old 'trade', should more properly be viewed as a relatively fleeting involvement. Also, aside from the much-discussed Atlantic slave trade, the wide-spread practice of slavery across Africa is rarely mentioned. Grabbing women and slaves (and cattle) was absolutely the norm in the inter-tribal conflicts of Sub-Saharan Africa. Again, and despite the tireless efforts of missionaries like David Livingstone and the Moffats, this penchant for capturing slaves only really died out when the Colonial powers instilled some law-and-order. |
Jefthing | 09 Dec 2014 2:55 p.m. PST |
The shipping of slaves on such a vast scale would never have been possible without the acquiescence of certain groups of indigenous Africans, North and South. Look at the number of Britons that found their way into Roman hands before the conquest, captured by tribal warfare and traded for decent plonk. I remember reading somewhere that the Romans praised the Britons for the quality of their slaves and hunting dogs. Wait a minute! I should get angry about that… |
Supercilius Maximus | 10 Dec 2014 5:03 a.m. PST |
There were notable exceptions, Supercilius: in 19th century Queensland large-scale active oppression by the army wasn't necessary; settlers and police managed well enough – and officials contributed mainly by their indifference to the destructive consequences of the imperial land-grab. The colony was widely regarded by humanitarian commentators as a blight on, and embarrassment to, the empire. You are quite right but…..IIRC, the governor was replaced after a public outcry and debates in Parliament, whilst a programme of compensation was implemented for any Aborigines who could show relatives had been killed. This programme included an innovative poster explaining in both words and pictures how the scheme worked. By all means not a perfect outcome, but indicative of a higher level of humanity than any other Colonial power – and, it has to be said, the vast majority of indigenous rulers of that period. With regard to the various slave trades, it should be remembered that the reason there aren't millions of modern-day descendants of the Ottoman slave trade is that male slaves were invariably castrated. Another myth is that the white DNA in African Americans today is from the plantation owners raping the women – it's rubbish. First, wealthy Europeans tended to stay away from the slaves because of the risk of disease (both ways); second, until 1775, about 1/3 of the slaves on N American plantations were white. |
GreenLeader | 10 Dec 2014 6:37 a.m. PST |
Supercilius Maximus Interesting statistic – do you know where these white slaves were from? Were they 'genuine' slaves or rather indentured labourers or criminals serving sentences of hard labour or something? |
Henry Martini | 10 Dec 2014 6:57 a.m. PST |
Um… that reads like garbled, half-remembered history, Supercilius. We're talking about half a century, during which a number of governors held office. Throughout this period the primary government institution for dealing with the Aboriginal population of QLD was the Native Mounted Police force. The squatter-dominated government resisted any change in policy that would have introduced some humanity into the relationship and potentially threatened the commercial interests of its members. Change only came in 1897 from within the NMP, when Commissioner Parry-Okeden implemented a more conciliatory policy – but even then, the outcome was the Aborigines Protection Act: essentially a system of Apartheid that merely formalised the dispossession process. As I said, QLD was regarded by humanitarians who knew the truth of what was happening on the frontier as a blot on the empire, where atrocities against and abuses of the native population were – whilst not on the same scale or as systematic – as endemic as those in the Congo. Your 'programme of compensation' is a mystery, and I'm not aware of any poster. Perhaps you're thinking of the one issued in Tasmania in the late 1820s by Governor Arthur to communicate his desire to apply white law equally to both races. |