"The British Empire Was Much Worse Than You Realize" Topic

At the height of the British Empire, just after the First World War, an island smaller than Kansas controlled roughly a quarter of the world's population and landmass. To the architects of this colossus, the largest empire in history, each conquest was a moral achievement. Imperial tutelage, often imparted through the barrel of an Enfield, was delivering benighted peoples from the errors of their ways

Main Page:

link

No different to any other empire then?

Let me summarize the article: blah blah New Yorker Rag blah blah blah White people evil blah blah.

Good response, King! I always wonder just how lousy the countries that were colonized would have turned out without it. And am sick of all the Western Culture/history bashing around the world. Perfectly on display on campuses and elsewhere around the world since October 7, 2023.

YouTube link

Nailed it, Mister Tibbles!

Someday, Dr. Who will visit a multiversal 20th Century England which has no colonies, no vast trading empire, and no thoughts of wanting one. It will turn out that it developed differently because it had delightful weather, so no one ever wanted to leave.

Tahiti, on the other hand…

mj, you mean the cultures that focused on eradicating existing cultures for their own personal gain, did those cultures a benefit by eradicating them?

And why, if left to their own devices, would they turn out to be lousy? Do you really think the only way to develop a functioning culture is to speak English? Or a variant of it anyway?

Colonialization, whether delivered by Europeans or any other nation/culture/ethnicity, has only ever been about greed. No doubt ably supported by hard working men and women wanting to better themselves and self-seeking religious zealots, but primarily driven by the greed of a few at the top of the social order.

I would respectfully suggest that the New Yorker have a look at what was left behind of the French, Dutch, Spanish, Moghul and Ottoman Empires – oh, maybe forget about what the French left behind – they still have 3,000 troops in Africa

Funny, Mister Tibbles as blah, blah, blah was going to be my response as well.

If we had not done it, another country would have done it, countries have been doing it since time began and some still are. I never colonised anywhere and spent plenty of time in the Dark Continent training and working with some superb folks, even taking the knee with them (it was a range practice!). Folks who are not affected by colonialism of the past, more worried about potential colonialism now.

And seeing 2 sides, the towns/cities and the villages up country which have not changed for thousands of years, except for a stand pipe, the odd generator and motorbike! Oh countries with plenty of potential and resources left, which is why China is buying them up,

Tally Ho!

Tally Ho!

I find criticism of the "evils" of British Colonialism from people in New Zealand to be hugely entertaining – unless TMP has a sizeable membership in the Maori community?

Perhaps this is just the intro to a series by the New Yorker. The British Empire is now all but dismantled of course, but which major power in 2023 which prides itself on being a liberal democracy has yet to give up its empire and give the indigenous inhabitants self determination?

The French conveniently include overseas territories that they have acquired in "Metropolitan France". There doesn't seem to be a lot of outrage about this current situation.

DBDD

Aside from stable fiat currency, electrical devices and an electric grid, glasses, pharmaceuticals, antibiotics, computers, automobiles, bicycles, trains, planes, trucks, tractors, modern farming techniques, chemical fertilizers, sterile hospitals and medical equipment, surgery, anesthetics, modern road and civil engineering design, houses built of brick and mortar, effective educational systems, and such shocking concepts as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, universal suffrage, trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, equality under the law, restrained criminal punishment, cell phones, modern weather prediction and tracking, modern banking and investment systems, etc., etc., what did the British ever do for their colonies?

A Brit-hating, university indoctrinated indeed:

Caroline Elkins is Professor of History and of African and African American Studies at Harvard University, the Thomas Henry Carroll/Ford Foundation Professor at Harvard Business School, Affiliated Professor at Harvard Law School, and the Founding Oppenheimer Director of Harvard's Center for African Studies. Her first book, Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain's Gulag in Kenya was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction and selected as a Book of the Year by The Economist. Her subsequent book, Legacy of Violence: A History of the British Empire was a finalist for the Ballie Gifford Prize, selected by The New York Times as one of the Notable 100 Books of 2022, and chosen by the BBC, Waterstone's, and History Today as a Book of the Year for 2022. She and her research were the subjects of a BBC documentary titled, "Kenya: White Terror," which won the International Red Cross Award at the Monte Carlos Film Festival. Her research also served as the basis for the historic Mau Mau reparations case in the High Court of London (2009-2013). Elkins was expert witness for the claimants, who received an apology and a 20-million-pound settlement from the British government for the torture and systematic abuse they endured in 1950s Kenya.

Elkins and her work have been profiled in newspapers and magazines around the world, including The Financial Times, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, Time, The Los Angeles Times, Le Monde, The Guardian, and The Boston Globe, as well as on various television and radio programs including CNN, ABC, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, BBC (Radio One, Radio Four, World News), and NPR's Fresh Air and All Things Considered. She has been a contributor to The New York Times, Foreign Affairs, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, and The New Republic.

At Harvard, Elkins was selected twice as a Walter Channing Cabot Fellow, elected as a member of the Faculty Council for Arts and Sciences, and inducted as an honorary member of the University's Phi Beta Kappa chapter. She has also held numerous other fellowships and awards including those from the Guggenheim Foundation, the American Council of Learned Scholars (Burkhardt Fellowship), Fulbright, the Social Science Research Council, the Mellon Foundation, the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, and the Rockefeller Center (Bellagio, Italy).

I see it took an age for Au pass de charge to find something. The poor chap must have ferreted high and low and bashing it out on the keyboard for months to find this 1950s opinion piece to use as a weapon on this Napoleonic Discussion Message Board

Dragging civilizations into the modern world is a thankless job I guess

+1 Mister Tibbles

The dawghouse leaves a lot of time on a man's hands, apparently.

Excuse me, could somebody tell me which of the Harry Potter books talks about how "British dark arts were distilled in interwar Palestine?" I thought I had a reasonable understanding of the history of modern Israel, but I don't know what they are talking about.

Grelber

I would respectfully suggest that the New Yorker have a look at what was left behind of the French, Dutch, Spanish, Moghul and Ottoman Empires – oh, maybe forget about what the French left behind – they still have 3,000 troops in Africa

?? what is the link with such debate, how many French soldiers in Roumania and Baltic States, maybe tomorrow in Armenia or what else, there were also 8000 Canadians until the end of the 20th in Germany and even before until in France, and what?
Sure that the French didn't left behind the Acadians given the ethnic cleansing and deportations from the British but they certainly left much more Indians than others colonial powers despite the so-called "French-Indians" Wars according to the British wishing to convert and falsify semantically a war with French allied to 23 Amerindian First Nations against the British helped by few natives tribes in a so-called war between French against Indians

One of the salesmen had a lovely story about an Aunt who lived in Kenya, and the Mau-Mau:

Two elderly "sisters" had a bedtime routine: manservant delivered hot cocoa @21:00 to bedroom; door locked; manservant back to quarters. No further contact until morning wake-up tea.

Excepting: One evening – after cocoa delivered and manservant gone – knock on door. No hesitation – one of the "sisters" got the sten-gun out from under the bed – whole magazine emptied into doorway.

In the morning – door unlocked when morning tea arrived – corridor full of dead Mau-Mau.

We never got to the bottom of whether they used 32 rounds or just 28/30 to save the magazine spring.

" Do you really think the only way to develop a functioning culture is to speak English? "

Mais oui.

they certainly left much more Indians than others colonial powers

Well, they got out of the game rather early.

(In Algeria and Indo-China they managed rather better)

despite the so-called "French-Indians" Wars according to the British wishing to convert and falsify semantically a war with French allied to 23 Amerindian First Nations

Actually, I believe that was our colonial cousins. You are, I presume, referring to the 'Seven Years War.'

against the British helped by few natives tribes in a so-called war between French against Indians

Tell that to the Iroquois.

As to Canada, I would respectfully point out that the land we live on was occupied by several different First Nations tribes, one of which was wiped out by the others well before any Europeans arrived

And the Canadian soldiers in Europe until 2000 were there at the request of our European cousins to address the issue of the looming threat of the Red Army – the French troops in Africa are there to ensure the commercial and political interests of the Fifth Republic

I had a criminal case I was assigned to investigate that involved a Sikh who supposedly did not speak much English so I brought along a Punjabi interpreter.

It turned out he did speak English and after I finished interviewing him he invited us both for tea. I don't know how it started but the topic got around to British and the two started arguing. The Punjabi was about how horrible the English occupation was while the Sikh argued how England stopped slavery, wife burning, thugees and brought medicine, infrastructure, education etc. and modernize the country.

It was interesting to be there listening to the whole thing.

It's interesting (and gratifying) to see how many US contributors have leapt to the defence of the British Empire on this topic.

DBDD

This whole thread should be moved to some other board – is there a "Neoracist Rants" board on TMP?

It isn't remotely Napoleonic, and it appears to be based on the racist opinions of a no-mark academic whose life's work appears to be detecting racism everywhere except in herself. This isn't entirely surprising since many if not most universities are now essentially just hate groups; Harvard certainly is. These opinions would thus be of no account anyway even if they were actually relevant to the board's subject.

I don't suppose we'd tolerate quoting the opinions of David Duke in the ACW boards, so why is this racist different?

The handy thing about something as large and complicated as the British Empire is that you can tell the story any way you want. This person wanted to tell an anti-west and anti-democracy story, so there you go.

From a larger perspective, most places colonized were awful before the europeans got there. Afterward they were differently awful. I would say less awful, but that might be a matter of opinion and doesn't excuse any of the crimes of the colonizers.

But attacking colonialism, patriarchy, liberal democracy, and western civilization generally is definitely the thing to do these days.

Jealousy is unedifying thing to see.

Phillius, others have already covered my response about as I would have.

@dibble

A lefty, Brit-hating, university indoctrinated tart indeed:

I take it that you dont approve of her getting the UK government to admit they were both covering up and at fault?

I see it took an age for Au pass de charge to find something. The poor chap must have ferreted high and low and bashing it out on the keyboard for months to find this 1950s opinion piece to use as a weapon on this Napoleonic Discussion Message Board

I dont necessarily endorse this viewpoint. Do you only call attention to viewpoints you like and sweep ones you dont like under the rug? Youre free to extol all the virtues of the British Empire or point out where both article and book author are wrong. However, when it comes to disarming ideas, just pulling the shades down to make something go away can produce self defeating consequences.

This whole thread should be moved to some other board – is there a "Neoracist Rants" board on TMP?

Is that the sort of board someone might go impugn the quality of someone's character because of their ethnicity, like if they were Spanish or Italian?

It isn't remotely Napoleonic,

Astounding, considering that during the Napoleonic Wars, Britain had huge military commitments to protect its interests in various colonies in the Caribbean, Latin America, Africa, India, Australia etc. I mean whatever was Wellesley doing in India if not bashing the locals for his government's non existent empire?

and it appears to be based on the racist opinions of a no-mark academic

Except that both authors are accomplished academics. I mean, I know they havent written for Osprey Publishing but…

whose life's work appears to be detecting racism everywhere except in herself.

I think she believes the Empire was willing to brutalize whites like the Irish and the Boers every bit as quickly as non whites.

However, there is this bit of British Imperial codified inconvenience to try and control Anglo-Indians of mixed race which smacks of Jim Crow:

link

Do you think David Duke would approve?

This isn't entirely surprising since many if not most universities are now essentially just hate groups; Harvard certainly is.

Doubtless it is purer to follow the school of thought that all real wisdom emanates from what occurs to you organically?

These opinions would thus be of no account anyway even if they were actually relevant to the board's subject.

We discuss the Empire on this board and Ive never seen anyone ask for the thread's removal. Are you sure it's topic related and not viewpoint related?

I don't suppose we'd tolerate quoting the opinions of David Duke in the ACW boards, so why is this racist different?

Bruce Quarrie gets quoted and discussed a lot on here and there are certainly arguments that he is a Waffen SS sympathizer. He was removed as EIC of a Military journal for enthusiasms surrounding Serbian ethnic cleansing. He's also not that great of a writer. However, I think we should be able to discuss him too.

And just about every country that once was controlled by the British Empire are stable, democratic countries today. Oh, the horrible British!!!

YouTube link

Connaught Ranger, I think you'll find, if you bothered thinking about it, that my comments apply to all colonialism and is location and colonizer agnostic.

Some peoples are just naturally good and noble while others are just rotten and evil it seems?
I have always contended that all of these types of things were never decided by race or nationalities-- although it does seem so on the surface.
I think it was a strong vs weak thing always
Now I will retreat back down into the safety of my bunker and leave this conversation to all the highly educated geniuses that inhabit this site?

Regards
Russ Dunaway

I think the claim about colonization being about greed isn't supportable at all, not to mention being needlessly emotional— an attempt to cut off any counter opinion or examination by using a term of condemnation.
"It's about greed (which is evil) and therefore is evil and must be condemned."

Well, I reject the premise, the claim, and the characterization.

Colonization can encompass many forms and many impulses and motivations, sometimes overlapping. Also, what is meant by "greed"— if simply the desire to earn a profit— that is, to put oneself in a better financial situation than one began with— then is not that what nearly everybody does daily as they transport themselves from a living environment to a work environment? Why go to work, save for economic reward? Why isn't that "greed"?
And to consider that the world's migrations are almost always resulting from a desire to improve one's conditions in some significant manner. Is that also "greed"? Were the Puritans who arrived in Plymouth motivated by greed? Yes, they expected to find and gain natural resources they could transport to Europe as repayment of the loans which paid for their journey and initial supplies, but doing so was hardly their motivation. They were seeking to create their own social and cultural situation, based on their religious faith, in which they could live, worship and function according to their principles and beliefs. At what point were they "greedy"? Yet certainly, this was an act of colonization.

Now, one can look at Jamestown and certain other areas of colonization in America that were more explicitly founded on a hope for profit. But is a hope for profit in and of itself "greed"? I would argue that it is not. We routinely accept that all people can seek profit for themselves, and that this is not inherently greedy. That's not what "greed" means. Greed is rather the desire to accumulate wealth without regard to one's moral and cultural obligations to others; it is not the acquisition itself which is greedy; it is the manner in which it is done.
Colonization thus is not inherently greedy, nor is inherently evil, anymore than it is inherently good. Nor is the native inherently more morally appreciable than the colonist or the immigrant. Men are men, the world over, and that means that all sorts of behaviors, values, and desires, good and ill, can be found in all cultures. No culture is purer than another, no people are without evil in their past.
The real test of a culture is how it is embraced by those who are strangers to it. Do they find benefit in it— even benefit they might vocally dismiss? Does adopting this strange culture improve their lives in significant ways? If it does, is that to be seen as a condemnation of the colonist, who has done nothing more than live in an unusual way, wear unusual attire, and use unusual, beneficial technology?

One can, of course, find things to criticize in a colony system. There will be excesses from cultural misunderstandings and disagreements, as well as excesses that do indeed derive from actual greed, justified in racist terms. I do not deny this, whether in subtle nor gross form. But to toss the whole thing out as not being beneficial is to be ignorant of history and the ways in which societies and cultures have progressed over the millennia. It's a mixed bag, neither wholly evil nor wholly good— and at times, yes, more the former than the latter. But as I asserted above (somewhat tongue in cheek), in the main Western Civilization has produced significantly positive results over the long term. If one disagrees, I ask one to point to a cultural systems which produces more freedom, more opportunity, and more individual and communal benefits across the board— one of those benefits being that Western Civilization is ready to question itself and seek to improve itself and corrects its wrongs as it advances. I struggle to think of others which do the same, or even admit they might indeed be "wrong" about their own attitudes and behaviors.

Parzival and Monty Python for the win.

Thanks to Parzival for putting some thought into a considered response. I don't know that greed isnt something that can be legitimately discussed around empire but not sure what it has to do with this book review and general touching on some of the British Empire's viewpoints.

Sunil Khilnani praises Carole Elkin's efforts to bring the UK Government to justice, apology and reparations for a cover up of abusive colonial behavior and a reminder to the world that some 36 other former British colonies may have multiple suppressed stories like this.

However, he criticizes her one-size-fits-all template of British Liberal Imperialism; that it was an iron fist in a velvet glove. That on the one hand it claimed it was simply temporarily civilizing the natives at great burden and expense to itself while she maintains this was simply propagandistic cover for a violent resource grab. Elkins claims the British Empire's was indeed as naughty as other people's empires but that the British were more deft at hiding their behavior.

Professor Khilnani says her template is a forced one and it isnt easy to claim that Britain didnt introduce all sort of benefits both material and philosophical that helped native peoples develop their own modern mind. He also criticizes her for conveniently ignoring cases where the British Empire did the right thing without resorting to violence.

Just so everyone knows, neither author suggests that colonization is evil but neither is happy with propaganda that covers up violence as a tool of suppressing voices for liberty.

Although it may not currently be a popular viewpoint, Parzival may be onto something; sometimes colonization can be benign if the colonial authority acts with fair-handedness.

"However, he criticizes her one-size-fits-all template of British Liberal Imperialism; that it was an iron fist in a velvet glove. That on the one hand it claimed it was simply temporarily civilizing the natives"

Leaving aside the merits of the author's analysis, surely a generalization – or 'template'- so sweeping as to posit a Liberal Imperialist beast that speaks as from one mouth and from one mind, presumably in Queen's English- over a hazily defined period of time- is hardly a convincing basis for discussion.

Parzival, are you here doing what you're accusing me of?

"if simply the desire to earn a profit" – you forgot to add "many times to the detriment of others".

Do you really think that the people who setup The Hudson Bay Company, The New Zealand Company, did so out of the goodness of their hearts? They did it to increase their own (some would say unnecessary) wealth. Did good come of it? Of course. Did evil and unnecessary suffering come of it? Of course.

If you bothered to read my first comment you would have seen that I was responding to the statement made by mjkerner who said that any uncolonized country would now be "lousey". You will notice I chose not to use the "R" word despite the implications of mjkerners post. My comments were purely aimed at his arrogant belief in the superiority of the colonizing countries.

I was simply calling for clarification as to what you meant by "greed." (I did explain that, yes, "greed" involves pursuing profit to the detriment of others.)

And no, I never said that The Hudson Bay Company, the New Zealand Company, the British East India Company (or the Dutch one), or any other "colonization companies" were formed "out of the goodness of their hearts." I asserted no such view at all; do not therefore attempt to put words in my mouth. I simply suggested that the desire for profit in and of itself is not necessarily greed, nor evil or necessarily deplorable. Indeed, what is the arbiter of "unnecessary" wealth? On what objective status is such an assertion made? Who decides what is unnecessary for anyone else? Whom among all of us flawed human beings has the right to assert that he knows what is "necessary" or "unnecessary" for anyone else? Based on what is such authority derived? Even pure democracy cannot withstand such a declaration of certainty, because those with less will always condemn those with more, and the tyranny of the majority will be as much a downfall to civilization as the tyranny of the few.

Returning to colonization, then, what does it matter that colonizers wished to be wealthy? That motivation is not inherently wrong, nor is it inherently good; it is neutral. It is the actions to acquire the wealth which become worthy of examination. Wealth is not a justification for abusive behavior, and I do not consider it such. But wealth itself is not inherently condemnable any more than it is commendable. It is the processes and methods used to achieve the wealth which are the true targets for moral evaluation, not the existence or production of wealth itself. If wealth derives from effective economic action— which indeed, it most often does— how is that wrong? It isn't. It is when wealth is derived from deception, abuse, human rights violations, fraud, force or threats of violence, misuse of the courts, theft, etc., etc., then the wealth is condemnable— but it is not actually the wealth that is the condemning thing, it is the behaviors which produced it.

I think the "anti-colonizer" movement thus is flawed. It pre-supposes negative motivations and negative status as being a broad condemnation of a culture or people, because broad condemnations are easier and grander than truly examining individual actors, actions, and elements on a one-by-one basis. I think colonizations should therefore be viewed in this light— both the evil and the good— instead of choosing only one as an assumed point of view.

Very well put, Parzival.

Too many people- and I am not including Phillius here- have a broad-brush, "black hat vs white hat" view of history and life.

I don't suppose we'd tolerate quoting the opinions of David Duke in the ACW boards, so why is this racist different?

I take it you don't visit the ACW boards very often.

Tibbles and 79th +1

The story about The British Empire's excesses in Kenya continues.

link

Caroline Elkins is Professor of History and of African and African American Studies at Harvard University

So…do you think she gives credit where credit is do for the British taking the lead on ending the international Africa slave trade? For being the leading Abolitionist power that first stopped the Transatlantic Trade, then the East Africa-Red Sea trade by naval blockade and ant-slavery patrols, losing 17,000 British sailors and marines in the process? And which example spurred the American Abolition movement.

AND after the Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833 that outlawed slavery, the British Government spent 40% of the annual budget purchasing and freeing slaves, and by 1843 all former slaves across the British Empire had been freed. The US Congress was not able to repeat this even after the founding of the Republican Party which had ending slavery as its core explicit goal, and it would take a bloody Civil War to finally end slavery in the US some 22 years after that had been accomplished across the Empire.

That's a great ad for Newcastle Brown Ale, Silurian. It's not a bad drop- excellent compared to some beers I've tasted. If you like a dark(ish) ale and can buy foreign beers* in the US it would be worth trying.

*I didn't notice any when I was there in '96, except for Fosters. Our US hosts were surprised when my team refused to drink it, referring to it as horse **ss.

PS And a couple of Mexican beers, I now remember.

Dal Gavan, you can get Newcastle here, at least in my state. I occasionally drink a bottle, as the tavern in town has it by the bottle. I heard Aussies are not crazy about Fosters. Heard Canadians feel like that about Moosehead. I feel like that about Budweiser and Bud Light. Taste like crap. Would never drink one again. When in Ireland, only US beers they had were Bud and Miller. Arghhh. Fortunately the Guinness, Harp and Smithwicks were good. Hate Guinness here, but was very good in Ireland.

Cheers