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

Hate Guinness here, but was very good in Ireland.

Newcastle Brown bottles are sold here, but they must put preservatives or something in it, as it's not as good and gives me heartburn (like all Aussie beers do, even draught beers). Guinness is not too bad here, but nowhere nearly as good as in Ireland. Murphy's wasn't bad, either, but seems to be limited to Cork.

If you like a good beer I found that Erdinger Weissbrau is pretty good, even here, and was brilliant with my meals in Germany and Austria. Also Českobudějovické pivo (Czech- I had to look up the name and I think it's the right one- I just pointed at the tap in the hotel bar when I was there) does a very nice bitter dark beer. I don't know how it travels, though.

Have had the Erdinger. I like it on occasion. I don't think they put preservatives in Guinness in Ireland (might be wrong). Also better there the closer to Dublin you are. Of course they are very particular about pouring it and the storage there as well.

Anymore in the states, microbreweries are breaking out everywhere.

I don't think they use it much in draught beers in Europe, mate. They do in bottled beer (and in everything, here in Oz).

On my 2019 trip I'd try a local beer (I prefer dark) with my evening meals. The Germans, Czechs and Belgians were very good, the Irish and northern English especially good.

Microbreweries are really catching on here as well, mate. I rarely buy a beer, though, through lack of interest.

An occasional drinker as well.

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.

She may or may not, i dont know. I think it's can be admirable that the British behaved like that and still hold them to account for knowingly committing bad acts.

I think all of those matters are positive and should be given full credit but they are also openly promoted by Britain. We are talking about a cover up which the Empire knew, even then, was a serious infraction of human rights.

I see Britain's behavior in this case, admitting mistakes and making amends, as a net positive for its reputation and willingness to admit wrongdoing which is exactly what makes it a civilized nation.

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.

What youre saying is that if a country/government has something of value to offer, their intimidating use of violence, abuse of human rights, torture and other atrocities are permissible.

Au pas de Charge, perhaps his point is that the article only presents the negative point of view. It ignores the fact that as well as "bad", the British also did some things which were "good"?

In other words the article is a hatchet job, written to appeal to a particular audience, rather than a comprehensive look at British colonisation.

Dal, they used to have the real Newcie Ale over here in the States but now it's brewed under licence and the taste is TOTALLY different, not distinctive at all. (Incidentally it was my first bender back in the day and I couldn't touch the stuff for years, lol). Favorite import now is Belhaven.

They did the same to Fosters in the US, mate. Unfortunately they were able to make it taste just like the original slops.

I have an occasional beer with mates, and usually it's a draught Guinness or house stout. There's nothing I've tasted in Oz that has impressed me.

I too have done over-zealous taste testings of beers, mate, so I can empathise with you. Belhaven? That's a Scottish brew, isn't it? (Just checked- it is.) I didn't try the beers in Edinburgh because I ate in my room. I couldn't be bothered hunting down a restaurant.

It seems somehow fitting that a debate over the goods and/or evils of the British Empire has devolved into a discussion of the qualities of various English and non-English beers.

I've been told to look for Guinness in cans, not bottles, in NZ. Origin matters. (Cans apparently are imported from Ireland.)

Parzival, 😉 and more interesting, then blah blah England bad! Blah blah Colonialism! Blah blah whites bad! Blah blah reparations! Blah blah minorities all good! Blah blah only west bad! Blah blah blah blah.

I know, 2 others already said this. I'm just paraphrasing.

Now back to beer.🍺

Theakston's used to export their Old Peculiar to the States – my absolute favorite. Unfortunately they stopped. :(

Gotta say though, the Real Ale Brewing Company here in Texas produce some delights – check out their Black Quad.

Have to look for it at some specialty stores. My favorite Irish Whiskey "connemara", I could only get in Ireland. Then recently found it in Wisconsin. "connemara" was the only peat infused Irish whiskey when I was there last. Liked the smell and the smooth taste. I occasionally like to sip a shot. So obviously a bottle lasts for years for me. Opps not beer, sorry.

It seems somehow fitting that a debate over the goods and/or evils of the British Empire has devolved into a discussion of the qualities of various English and non-English beers.

Nothing tells me a topic doesn't bother members like a spontaneous derailment attempt.

Maybe you people should be discussing tea rather than beer. There seems to be an enormous reparations suit brewing involving Kenya based UK tea companies.

link

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

79th PA: Funny, Mister Tibbles as blah, blah, blah was going to be my response as well.

35thOVI: Parzival, 😉 and more interesting, then blah blah England bad! Blah blah Colonialism! Blah blah whites bad! Blah blah reparations! Blah blah minorities all good! Blah blah only west bad! Blah blah blah blah.

I know, 2 others already said this. I'm just paraphrasing.

I wont even bother to ask if you actually read any of this. Can you let us in on How trivializing incidents like this is a good look for Colonialism? What it has to do with white people vs non white people?

To "paraphrase", none of you three think it's an outrage when civilians are rounded up, interned in camps, tortured and slaughtered?

I'm more concerned about the threats and actions of China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Communism, Marxism, drug cartels, inner city gang violence, untreated violent mental illness, riots, terrorism, human trafficking, and other evils going on today than I am about the past excesses of an Empire which has ceased to exist as one. But hey, by all means let us ignore those to focus on people long dead and out of power.

Parz +1. You left out the vehement anti-semitism being displayed in many of our cities and on many of our college campuses, by these same people complaining about past oppression and discrimination.

TMP needs to develop an award for the "Virtue Signaler of 2023" award. Do we have any nominations?

Wolfhag

It seems somehow fitting that a debate over the goods and/or evils of the British Empire has devolved into a discussion of the qualities of various English and non-English beers.

How did that happen?

Nothing tells me a topic doesn't bother members like a spontaneous derailment attempt.

So what is it you want, Au pas de Charge? All us wailing at the evil of people who lived in the past? Do we have to accept blame and shame for things done by people in the past, people to whom we are probably not even distantly related?

It's that last that annoys me. I didn't send the boats and settlers out, I didn't exploit the natives and I didn't destroy cultures in the name of spreading my preferred religious beliefs, nor did I exile inhabitants so I could build military installations in strategic locations, as every other colonising power- including the US- has done.

I hold responsibility for the things I have done in my life, not the things done by those who lived before I was born or even those who are currently alive whom I've neither met nor care to meet.

The guilt and shame merchants can take a flying bleep at a guillotine as far as I'm concerned. I didn't do those things and I'll be bleeped if I'll take on a shed-load of guilt and anguish because some over-educated idiot in academia wants me to.

I think we are all aware that the British Empire was not all sunshine and roses. Not one of us here would not be outraged at torture and slaughter. I think it's fair to say most Britons today are not exactly proud of their colonial past.

But as Dal has said, is this thread, on a toy soldier site seeking a litany of penitent posts?
This isn't as immediate and heart-wrenching as certain other topics, and so, yes while I recognize and acknowledge past misdeeds, I'm bringing beer into it.

35th OVI: Yes, regrettably I did leave the horrific rise in antisemitism out, but I didn't want to be too currently political. But yes, I am far, far, more concerned about that (and the utter ignorance of history from which it stems) than I am about British Colonialism in any era.

PS SleepyDragon, I didn't know that about the Guinness cans. Filed in case I want to test your theory later. :-)

Subject: Why Guinness Tastes Better in Ireland (& More Surprising Guinness Facts) « Food Hacks :: WonderHowTo


link

BBC Radio 4 comedy but actually a real comment on British Empire wirth sombody who has actually lived it and no just blustered mindlessly.
link

That's a good article, 35th. I agree about it tasting better just because of the ambience in the Irish pubs. I don't know what they do when they brew it here (probably add preservative), but it's more acidic. I'll get around to testing SleepyDragon's thesis one day.

@Parzival

I'm more concerned about the threats and actions of China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Communism, Marxism, drug cartels, inner city gang violence, untreated violent mental illness, riots, terrorism, human trafficking, and other evils going on today than I am about the past excesses of an Empire which has ceased to exist as one. But hey, by all means let us ignore those to focus on people long dead and out of power.

What's stopping you from doing that? Can you point me to all your threads concerned about these wrongs?

You dont think punishing people for past crimes affects how people behave going forward?

@35th OVI

Parz +1. You left out the vehement anti-semitism being displayed in many of our cities and on many of our college campuses, by these same people complaining about past oppression and discrimination.

That's not where most antisemitism is coming from. Someone's not reading again.

In any case, what exactly do you think is studied to determine antisemitism?

If memory serves, the two of you are always bemoaning erasing history. Is this not then a clear cut case of history having been erased and now properly recorded? This would all seem to be inconsistent. Unless, it is not the erasure of history that's a problem but rather the erasure of a certain spin on history that is cause for concern?

@Dal Gavan

So what is it you want, Au pas de Charge?

I dont want anything, it's an historical topic. It's based on research, evidence, facts, cover ups, criminal acts, bad acts, legal fights and a nation coming to grips with its history.

All us wailing at the evil of people who lived in the past?

You are required to do nothing but if you are here you could discuss the topic rather than trying to rebury what has only recently been uncovered.

Do we have to accept blame and shame for things done by people in the past, people to whom we are probably not even distantly related?

How is this topic blaming and shaming you?

It's that last that annoys me. I didn't send the boats and settlers out, I didn't exploit the natives and I didn't destroy cultures in the name of spreading my preferred religious beliefs, nor did I exile inhabitants so I could build military installations in strategic locations, as every other colonising power- including the US- has done.

Do you find determining and exposing the true historical record to painful?

I hold responsibility for the things I have done in my life, not the things done by those who lived before I was born or even those who are currently alive whom I've neither met nor care to meet.

You make no judgments about any historical figure or nation's actions?

The guilt and shame merchants can take a flying bleep at a guillotine as far as I'm concerned. I didn't do those things and I'll be bleeped if I'll take on a shed-load of guilt and anguish because some over-educated idiot in academia wants me to.

So the real culprit is Professor Elkins for exposing this cover up of atrocities? Is she a trouble maker with an agenda?

@Silurian

I think we are all aware that the British Empire was not all sunshine and roses. Not one of us here would not be outraged at torture and slaughter. I think it's fair to say most Britons today are not exactly proud of their colonial past.

But as Dal has said, is this thread, on a toy soldier site seeking a litany of penitent posts?
This isn't as immediate and heart-wrenching as certain other topics, and so, yes while I recognize and acknowledge past misdeeds, I'm bringing beer into it.

Interestingly and I dont think accidentally, this thread got removed from the Napoleonic and 19th Century boards I dont think it was because of the subject matter because threads praising the British Empire seem to remain undisturbed. Additionally, it cannot be a time issue because some of the anti Napoleon posters have been going on for years how Napoleon is responsible for the deaths of millions; frequently wringing their hands at all the unnecessary, untold suffering.

In any case, now that it's on the general history board, a board where no toy soldier need be mentioned, you're objection is that it is too old to qualify as general history?

Dal Gavan

"So what is it you want, Au pas de Charge?"

Maybe hopping for a cut in future reparations? 🤔

"That's not where most antisemitism is coming from. Someone's not reading again."

I'd say someone has been spending too much time watching "The View" and "CNN" recently, or he would be familiar with calls of: "From the River to the Sea" and "intifada" being shouted by students and protesters on collage campuses and major cities. Seems anti-Semitism is rampant in places like Harvard and other campuses. These are the same students and groups that shout for the removal of the monuments and name changes. Seems the outrage is only generated for "certain groups", but "white" Israelis are fair game.

"In any case, what exactly do you think is studied to determine antisemitism?"

Well with the groups I speak of above I would guess they have been reading "mein kampf" and Jihadist propaganda. "White colonialist Israelis BAD. Therefore perceived dark skinned Hamas/Palestinians, GOOD". Indoctrination has been more than successful.

I don't post such threads because they involve current politics, and this is not the site for that, which you well know. Stop trying to goad people into the Dawghouse.
It is not my desire to use controversial stories to provoke modern political debate on TMP.

The thing is, APDC, I do know about the history of the things I mentioned. But yes, it's becoming increasingly clear that some do not.

I dont want anything, it's an historical topic. It's based on research, evidence, facts, cover ups, criminal acts, bad acts, legal fights and a nation coming to grips with its history.

It's also written in an extremely biased manner to exaggerate the bad, and completely ignore the good, however little there may be that can be seen as good.

You are required to do nothing but if you are here you could discuss the topic rather than trying to rebury what has only recently been uncovered.

Taking you at your word (to be honest I suspect your motivation includes a bridge, so to speak), here's my opinion of the piece again : the article is a hatchet job, written to appeal to a particular audience, rather than a comprehensive look at British colonisation. In less formal language, it's biased, inflammatory written for the purpose of virtue signalling.

Your purpose in posting it was probably not to have a reasoned debate, but to generate the reactions you got. I suppose that somehow gives you a nice warm and fuzzy?

Do you find determining and exposing the true historical record to painful?

No. I am, however, annoyed by clumsy attempts to distort the historical record for personal advancement, personal gain or to push a political agendum. Which is why I think the essay is biased, exaggerated-for-effect twaddle.

You make no judgments about any historical figure or nation's actions?

I believe you're a little smarter than that, mate, but it's a nice red herring/strawman. Everyone who is interested in it will inevitably judge historical people and cultures. The worst of them will pre-judge history, either influenced excessively by their own biases, or to gain advantage in some manner- eg sell more books, like a successful "historian here, who plays to the ANZAC myth to sell books. They imply, distort or leave out any facts or accepted suppositions that do not fit their own world view.

My paternal grandmother was the same. She was a rabid Irish nationalist, so I've heard chapter and verse of what the "Bastard British" did in Ireland as a whole, and Cork and Kilkenny in particular. According to Nan there was no good done, no redeeming feature whatsoever, to the Occupation. She would never explain why, though, one of the first things the Irish did after independence was have a civil war. The British, in her world view, were responsible for the Irish civil war as well, not rival gangs of political aspirants who were determined to run Ireland for their own benefit. Nan and Professor Elkins would probably get on quite well. Neither would recognise that, no matter how outweighed the good is by the bad, to be truly subjective you need to include both in your rant- or you'll be seen as a bigoted old chucking a tanty.

So the real culprit is Professor Elkins for exposing this cover up of atrocities? Is she a trouble maker with an agenda?

You presume and assume too much, ApdC. The professor has not exposed the atrocities- they are not new examples of atrocities which you appear to want to give her credit for finding. The professor is merely repeating that which has already been exposed- and emphasised some points to suit her purposes.

You posted it for your own purposes.

So job done. You can report to the professor that most of the posters on this thread are not as virtuous as the professor and yourself- and no doubt have a warm and fuzzy about it- because we'd rather talk about beer than to discuss her magnum opus profundas.

Cheers.

PS BTW, thanks for revealing your motivation:

You dont think punishing people for past crimes affects how people behave going forward?

So, someone has their eyes on reparations? Here it seems that lawyers, "advocates" and "activists" end up with the great bulk of the reparations, not the people to whom the reparations should go.

Which are you and the prof- if I'm not presuming incorrectly- lawyers, "advocates" or "activists"?

"Except that both authors are accomplished academics."

The problem with "acomplished academics" is that academia has done so much damage to itself, (see the Ivy League post October 7 for plenty of examples), that being an accomplished academic doesn't mean what it used to.

Pointing to someone and saying "they're well respected in academic circles" doesn't mean anything any more.

"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."

Of course they did it to earn a profit. Because without profit the effort would be futile. Because all you would be doing without profit is pouring your money into a hole and eventually you run out of money and can't do anything.

Who decides when wealth is "unnecessary"? You? Me? Usually it someone who's jealous of someone else's wealth. When they get money the goal posts of what's 'unnecessary' move. Even Marx recanted a lot of his views on communism when his wife inherited a large amount of money.

APDC:
"Interestingly and I dont think accidentally, this thread got removed from the Napoleonic and 19th Century boards I dont think it was because of the subject matter because threads praising the British Empire seem to remain undisturbed. Additionally, it cannot be a time issue because some of the anti Napoleon posters have been going on for years how Napoleon is responsible for the deaths of millions; frequently wringing their hands at all the unnecessary, untold suffering."

Translation:
"Help, help! I'm being repressed! Come see the violence inherit in the system!"

link

Came across this critique of Elkins' research in my morning reading, and thought it might be of interest.

That's a nice find, Npr. However, like the original document it is full of supposition and short of reliable (any, in this case) sources. Nor do I think that David Elstein will be sending Xmas cards to Ms Elkins, so there's some personal biases involved.

However, it's still an interesting rebuttal of the original essay. I also think it's painted a good picture of today's academia creatures.

Dn Jackson:

"Help, help! I'm being repressed! Come see the violence inherit in the system!"

LOL. Well put, mate.

Thanks. :-)

dn Jackson: The problem with "acomplished academics" is that academia has done so much damage to itself, (see the Ivy League post October 7 for plenty of examples), that being an accomplished academic doesn't mean what it used to.

Pointing to someone and saying "they're well respected in academic circles" doesn't mean anything any more.

Pithy though this analysis may seem to you, does it make a difference if one doesn't read what they write?

She did receive a Pulitzer Prize for her 2005 book on British atrocities committed against the Kenyans.

Taking you at your word (to be honest I suspect your motivation includes a bridge, so to speak), here's my opinion of the piece again : the article is a hatchet job, written to appeal to a particular audience, rather than a comprehensive look at British colonisation.

My motivation? Are we free to assign motives on here now? My motivation is discussing history.

The article is a hatchet job? On whom? Did you read it? The audience is the world. The British government has admitted fault on numerous counts of covering up bad acts. No idea what that has to do with me.

Prof Elkins had to do a lot of her work by speculating on records the British government alternatively destroyed, lied about their existence or refused to let her see. She was mostly right. She wasnt the only professional witness in the law suit.

In any case, the cover up by the British government was real, the documents are real, the widespread destruction of incriminating documents is real, the crimes are real. I dont know why you would think the article is the limit of the discussion; there's lots of material on the original case and the ones which seem to be coming up.

link

This is interesting too:

jstor.org/stable/43917577

Your purpose in posting it was probably not to have a reasoned debate, but to generate the reactions you got. I suppose that somehow gives you a nice warm and fuzzy?

How would I know what reactions I would get? Youre right about not getting much in the way of reasoned debate. The story exists independent of my reactions. Frankly, it's getting much bigger.

No. I am, however, annoyed by clumsy attempts to distort the historical record for personal advancement, personal gain or to push a political agendum. Which is why I think the essay is biased, exaggerated-for-effect twaddle.

The only party distorting anything is the British Empire. Who are the authors doing research and writing about the British Empire who have nothing to gain personally? And does everyone have a political agenda or is that label we slap on something when we find it objectionable?

Biased? Has anyone written an unbiased critique of the British Empire's excesses? Elkin's hasnt been accused of making anything up or lying; at most her numbers are considered inflated (Moslty by Elstein who himself provides no proof to substantiate his claims) but she has to work with an incomplete record and there's always enough truth in her speculation to expose shocking behavior on the part of British colonial actors.

You presume and assume too much, ApdC. The professor has not exposed the atrocities- they are not new examples of atrocities which you appear to want to give her credit for finding. The professor is merely repeating that which has already been exposed- and emphasised some points to suit her purposes.

Im not sure what point you're making here. She doesn't have to be the last stop. What's important is she's helped to get the history more right than it was before. She doesn't have to be 100% correct and the British Empire 100% wrong to invite further inquiry about how the British truly conducted themselves in their colonies.

She wrote an interesting piece on British document deceits, cover ups and destruction:

link

An there's an article of the British Empire's official policy of claiming it had no official policy for abusing the native populations.

link

How would I know what reactions I would get?

Come on, mate, you had a pretty good idea how people would react. You've also got form when it comes to stirring the pot. Deny as you will, I'll disbelieve you as I will.

Thanks for the links. I part read the first link and I'll finish that and the other in my own good time. I'm not denying there were cover-ups, in fact I'd be surprised if their weren't. No government believes in transparency, no matter how often they claim otherwise. Nor do I deny atrocities were committed. I do disagree that the Prof had unearthed new material, though she did flag the issue to a wider, American audience. But she was doing it for other than altruistic reasons- as her using her own book as a reference in the first link indicated. If you didn't read Nine pound round's link may may want to do so, for interest sake if nowt else. I doubt you'll agree with any of it.

We're not going to agree on the veracity nor the methodology of the Prof, so let's agree to disagree.

PS BTW, Pommy bashing is the Australian national sport, so it's annoying when you Yanks start treading on our turf.

APDC… some advice for you from Kenny Rodgers

"You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run"

Anyone want to talk about beer?

@Dal Gavan

Come on, mate, you had a pretty good idea how people would react.

Members should be able to field a topic like this. I am happy to discuss positive aspects of the British Empire and have on here, multiple times.

You've also got form when it comes to stirring the pot. Deny as you will, I'll disbelieve you as I will.

I'm flattered but I'm actually very careful on here.

I did read some of Elstein's publications. He appears to be waging a one man campaign in favor of the British Empire's violent, covered up policies based on such factors such as:

1. Other Empires did the same thing; torturing, killing, starving…why pick on the British?

2. It wasnt 100,000 Kenyans killed but more like 30,000

3. They werent concentration camps, just barbed wire hemming in entire villages.

4 Chronically repeating that some of Elkin's estimates have been debunked, offering no more proof than his own claims that they've been debunked and insisting that anyone who doesn't accept his debunking claims is involved in a conspiracy to defame the British Empire.

Sounds like something of a nutter.

He doesnt seem to have ever appeared at the trial and gone under oath with any of his assertions. Additionally, the article that NPR put down is a rehash of his 20 year long assertions which he now believes have become true because they're twenty years old.

An interesting look at the Hanslope Disclosure:

link

Here is the admission by the British government that atrocities were both committed and covered up in Kenya. Alth9ugh there are attempts to limit the monetary liabilities going forward as well as assert statute of limitations as a bar to lawsuits. In fact, several suits have been dismissed recently on Statute of limitation grounds.

link

ApdC, as I said before I don't doubt there were cover ups, atrocities and the British government has tried to limit compensation. But what makes them different to any other government?

And what makes the Prof think she's the first person who uncovered them?

I'm not going to argue the Prof any further. I won't change your mind- nor do I really want to. Ironically, the first of the two links has just hardened my opinion of the Prof. Did the Prof attend the court case of April 2021? If so, how much did she get paid to appear? Or did she only get airfares, lodgings, meals and a daily allowance? If she did not attend, how much was she paid for her nearly 80 pages of witness statement?

Not every protected hamlet was a concentration camp, mate, nor was the Mau-Mau purely an independence movement. If you were familiar with the Malaya/Malaysian Emergencies, The Konfrontasi and Kenya you may have a better idea why I believe the Prof exaggerates for effect.

Anyway, I hope you have a great Xmas and New Year, mate. I'm going to leave this sleeping dog to its philosophical peregrinations.

Au Pase De Charge

Methinks there's a touch of this somewhere.

What always makes me laugh about Americans talking about empire is that they never address the there own empire, founded by racist ethnic cleansing and most importantly not yet given back to the locals. This applies to Canada, the USofA and anywhere in South America where the majority of the population are genetically Spanish or Portuguese. In the worst cases like Argentina there are no locals left.

Mark please don't judge all Americans by one individual.

I doubt there is any country or race innocent.