The British Empire Thread

MarchDub

getz wrote: »

lets take this to the next step-- europeans countrys invading ; america [north and south]canada ,australia ,south africa,ect ect- ho yes just remember your ancesters invaded ireland from mainland europe

There is no next step about that. If you visit Washington DC you will find the "National museum of the American Indian" funded by Federal money [US taxpayers] opened about two years ago. The museum narrative clearly states that the English and other Europeans came with military backing and dispossessed the native Americans of the lands and livelihood. American history schoolbooks also take this European dispossession on board.

As regards the Europeans who "invaded" Ireland? Are you referring to Neolithic times - this was a movement of people all across Europe who came to farm unoccupied land - no military incursion was involved. This is how all of Europe originally became settled. As for the "Celtic invasion" myth in Ireland that has long been discredited by archaeologists and DNA analysis. It never happened. The original Irish settlers were neolithic in origin - not "invaders" in the accepted sense of the word.

ilkhanid

Oh, for Gods sake. Judging the past by the standards of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is daft. Maybe the Celts didn't "invade" Ireland, but they certainly invaded other places. Just about every modern state is founded on invasion and conquest somewhere along the line. And those who were conquered were usually no angels themselves too...look at the Aztecs. Singling out the British Empire as something particularly bad is futile as well as unhistorical.

MarchDub

ilkhanid wrote: »

Oh, f Maybe the Celts didn't "invade" Ireland, but they certainly invaded other places. Just about every modern state is founded on invasion and conquest somewhere along the line. And those who were conquered were usually no angels themselves too...look at the Aztecs. Singling out the British Empire as something particularly bad is futile as well as unhistorical.

You are badly mis-read about the "Celtic" issue. There is no such distinct ethnic entity as a Celtic people. "Celtic" was a culture that spread. It is about 50 years since archaeologists dismissed the myth of a distinct Celtic people. Now the DNA evidence is concurring with that.

I am certainly not singling out the British empire as "particularly bad" - but bad it was. So neither would I dismiss or understate its savagery or its inherent xenophobia. Or as James Joyce coined it "The Brutish Empire".

MarchDub

ilkhanid wrote: »

Oh, for Gods sake. Judging the past by the standards of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is daft.

The horrendous thing from a historical viewpoint is that human rights are declared frequently throughout history but with a limited application. The same people who stand and declare human rights have often been the same ones who invaded territories, put other humans into bondage, and dispossessed indigenous landholders. Christianity has been established for almost two thousand years [if you take Nicea as the real theological establishment] - yet the basic tenets of Christianity were violated over and over again by Christians.

The Anglo Normans who invaded Ireland in the twelfth century did so to "reform" Irish Christianity - yet they went about with superior weaponry [cross bows] killing and plundering all before them.

Yes, we can judge the past - it is the only way to look at it and learn.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If you look at the former Yugoslavia, while there was a strong dictator in charge, there was relative peace, it wasn't until that fell apart that war broke out. That is not an excuse for imperialism btw, that is merely pointing out a fact.

Conversely, in Ireland once the British left 26 counties there was peace in that region. It was in the still occupied 6 that chaos broke out.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Conversely, in Ireland once the British left 26 counties there was peace in that region. It was in the still occupied 6 that chaos broke out.

was there not the small matter of a civil war?

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

was there not the small matter of a civil war?

The civil war was indeed a small matter compared to those in other countries. It resulted in around 900 casualties and very few civilian deaths. This is a low figure as civil wars go - compare the American Civil War at around one million deaths or approx 4% of the population. Ireland would have to have seen 120,000 deaths to have been even close in comparison.

The Irish civil war - as a violent episode I stress - was done and dusted within a short period and the Free State reached political and social stability. The same could not be said for the 6 county region where the British remained.

As regards British culpability in the civil war - there was some. Recent documents show the threat of violence on the British side should the Irish not sign. By this I mean the threat to send in large amount of fresh troops into Ireland. In the late 1920s when Churchill was preparing to write a memoir he was told emphatically not to mention the pressure under threat of violence - in the form of Brit troops - placed on the signatories of the Anglo-Irish Treaty.

McArmalite

Deleted User wrote: »

India was divided up before intependance as it proved impossible to form a unity government
The whole region was a large number of independant states before the Empire, Britain unified them into one colony.

Sure there was historical ill feeling between the Hindu and Muslims, but by 1921 Ghandi's Indian Congress had united both religions in the pursuit of an independent India. In 1937 provincial elections Ghandi's Indian Congress won a clear majority. Jinnah's Muslim league failed to win a single province. But still the brits maintained Jinnah and his organisation as a deciding entity in India's future.

Jinnah didn't have the power to partition India. Although he is obviously partly to blame as he acted as a british puppet in the travesty, it was britian who was the real driving force behind partition. Mountbatten kept the boundary lines of India and Pakistan under lock and key until the pageantry, splendor and photo opportunities of Indpendence day and the British would not be be blamed for the violence which would erupt. The reasoning: "the earlier it was published, the more the British would have to bear the responsibility for the disturbances which would undoubtedly result".

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Sure there was historical ill feeling between the Hindu and Muslims, but by 1921 Ghandi's Indian Congress had united both religions in the pursuit of an independent India.

Hindu's, Muslims and Sikhs had been around for a lot longer than the British. read a bit about Sikh history, it is full of conflict with Hindus and Muslims. To say there was historical ill feeling between them is like saying Mugabe is a bit of a scoundrel.:D

There are racial tensions in that region that have nothing to do with British rule.

ilkhanid

"Conversely, in Ireland once the British left 26 counties there was peace in that region. It was in the still occupied 6 that chaos broke out."
It was'nt that the fact that the British had not left that caused the chaos. It was the fact that the North was divided into Unionist and Nationalist. If it had been ethnically homogenous there would have been no trouble at all.Conversely, the fact that the Unionist population in the South either emigrated or kept their heads down contributed to a lack of further trouble.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that's very true, but you will find people who like to blame all of India's problems on British rule

Most people don't blame all of India's problems on britain, but you try to blame all of India's problems on India ( with britain the benign, benevolent well meaning friend etc, etc, etc)

Fratton Fred wrote: »

(The same as someone here recently who tried blaming the Irish civil war on Britain).

If britain had allowed of the people of Ireland their self determination ( and just remember this was just a little after the so called ' war for the freedom of small nations ') then the war against britain and the civil war would never have come about. The civil war was forced on the reluctant Free State by Churchill's demands that the FS should move aginst the IRA in the Four Courts etc and even ' loaned ' them artillery, armoured cars etc to get the job underway.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If you look at the former Yugoslavia, while there was a strong dictator in charge, there was relative peace, it wasn't until that fell apart that war broke out. That is not an excuse for imperialism btw, that is merely pointing out a fact.

No, it's an attempted excuse for british imperialism and now we are in for a lecture on how the brits could have taught Ghandi and India a thing or too about british civilization with the aid of a trusty Martini Henry and some great british pluck, etc, etc. It's called the britsh sense of fairplay, something their very proud of.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Hindu's, Muslims and Sikhs had been around for a lot longer than the British. read a bit about Sikh history, it is full of conflict with Hindus and Muslims. To say there was historical ill feeling between them is like saying Mugabe is a bit of a scoundrel.:D

There are racial tensions in that region that have nothing to do with British rule.

Like every human society, down through history their was tensions and conflicts between the various religious and ethnic groups. However most of this had faded away by the 1900's and become minimal or as previously stated " Sure there was historical ill feeling between the Hindu and Muslims, but by 1921 Ghandi's Indian Congress had united both religions in the pursuit of an independent India. ". However, this pluralism was destroyed by britain, but what else could you expect from a society that was rightly described as the cancer of humanity.

ilkhanid

"If britain had allowed of the people of Ireland their self determination...then the war against britain and the civil war would never have come about."

No. We would have had just another-longer and more bitter-civil war,between different sides.

"If britain had allowed of the people of Ireland their self determination..." and of course denied it to the people of the North-east.

"...down through history their was tensions and conflicts between the various religious and ethnic groups. However most of this had faded away....".

Hmmm...I remember they thought similar things about Yugoslavia in 1980.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Most people don't blame all of India's problems on britain, but you try to blame all of India's problems on India ( with britain the benign, benevolent well meaning friend etc, etc, etc)

sorry, I forget where I did that, maybe you could point me to the post (Or stop accusing me of saying things I did not)

McArmalite wrote: »

If britain had allowed of the people of Ireland their self determination ( and just remember this was just a little after the so called ' war for the freedom of small nations ') then the war against britain and the civil war would never have come about. The civil war was forced on the reluctant Free State by Churchill's demands that the FS should move aginst the IRA in the Four Courts etc and even ' loaned ' them artillery, armoured cars etc to get the job underway.

or if the Irish rebellion hadn't been sponsored by the Germans and followed the ideals of communism, both of which were feared at the time by the British regime.

McArmalite wrote: »

No, it's an attempted excuse for british imperialism and now we are in for a lecture on how the brits could have taught Ghandi and India a thing or too about british civilization with the aid of a trusty Martini Henry and some great british pluck, etc, etc. It's called the britsh sense of fairplay, something their very proud of.

WTF are you on about? you are really trying your hardest to insult me aren't you. It must be difficult though, the Terms West brit, Unionist, all your usual insults are irrelevant to me, anything else would get you banned so you have to drag up your own prejudices and throw them at me in the hope I will bit.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Like every human society, down through history their was tensions and conflicts between the various religious and ethnic groups. However most of this had faded away by the 1900's and become minimal or as previously stated " Sure there was historical ill feeling between the Hindu and Muslims, but by 1921 Ghandi's Indian Congress had united both religions in the pursuit of an independent India. ". However, this pluralism was destroyed by britain, but what else could you expect from a society that was rightly described as the cancer of humanity.

it had faded away at about the same time Britains control over India was at its strongest (Thanks to those trusty Irish soldiers). In a similar way really that the ethnic tensions reduced under Tito.

So British society was described as the cancer of humanity was it? by who, another of your murdering chums to help them justify "The Slaughter of Innocents"?

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

or if the Irish rebellion hadn't been sponsored by the Germans and followed the ideals of communism, both of which were feared at the time by the British regime.

The 1916 rebels were Communists now ?

The 1916 rebels did not follow the 'ideals of communism'. Even their declared socialist leanings were a side issue and not universal among the IRA of the time.

In later years the greenbook even had a rule specifically forbidding membership of the communist party (if I recall correctly). They were god-fearing men who by and large and had no truck with communism whatsoever. Despite communist activities in Germany and elsewhere (as it was quite fashionable for a time).

The rebellion wasnt 'sponsored' by Germany either (though there was some slight material assistance). Even giving you the benefit of the doubt here to say that Germany 'Sponsored' the 1916 rebellion is misleading at best.

More likely it's an alleged retro-active justification for the british actions which precipitated the rising and their brutal response in the aftermath.

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

The 1916 rebels were Communists now ?

The 1916 rebels did not follow the 'ideals of communism'. Even their declared socialist leanings were a side issue and not universal among the IRA of the time.

In later years the greenbook even had a rule specifically forbidding membership of the communist party (if I recall correctly). They were god-fearing men who by and large and had no truck with communism whatsoever. Despite communist activities in Germany and elsewhere (as it was quite fashionable for a time).

The rebellion wasnt 'sponsored' by Germany either (though there was some slight material assistance). Even giving you the benefit of the doubt here to say that Germany 'Sponsored' the 1916 rebellion is misleading at best.

More likely it's an alleged retro-active justification for the british actions which precipitated the rising and their brutal response in the aftermath.

Socialist then, to a right wing British government there wasn't a lot of difference. Using the term "Gallant Allies in Europe" in the declaration probably wasn't the best idea either.

It gave the British government all the excuses they needed to go back on the agreement they had previously made, that's my point.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Socialist then, to a right wing British government there wasn't a lot of difference. Using the term "Gallant Allies in Europe" in the declaration probably wasn't the best idea either.

Good thing we are not a 'right wing british govt' then isnt it ? There is a big difference between some republicans (limited) socialist leanings' and saying that the 1916 Rising 'followed the ideals of communism' which was what you said.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It gave the British government all the excuses they needed to go back on the agreement they had previously made, that's my point.

The british govt 'excuses' for their policies/behaviour and actions in Ireland very rarely impressed or were believed by anyone in Ireland - only clueless detached people in britain with an extremely blinkered view on Ireland.

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

Good thing we are not a 'right wing british govt' then isnt it ? There is a big difference between some republicans (limited) socialist leanings' and saying that the 1916 Rising 'followed the ideals of communism' which was what you said.

couldn't agree more/

Morlar wrote: »

The british govt 'excuses' for their policies/behaviour and actions in Ireland very rarely impressed or were believed by anyone in Ireland - only clueless detached people in britain with an extremely blinkered view on Ireland.

It doesn't matter if the excuses were believed or not. My wife never believes my excuses for coming home late from the pub, but I still make them and use them as justification for my actions. FWIW, I don't believe the treatment of the 1916 leaders and the following actions by the Black and Tans were supported by the British Public.

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote: »

FWIW, I don't believe the treatment of the 1916 leaders and the following actions by the Black and Tans were supported by the British Public.

I think it's fair to say that the British public really didn't care about what was happening in Ireland at the time, so many were being killed in the war.

They were far more concerned about who was going to receive the telegram (reporting the loss of a son) next.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

FWIW, I don't believe the treatment of the 1916 leaders and the following actions by the Black and Tans were supported by the British Public.

I would disagree with that. I believe they were, bearing in mind the pumped up jingo-istic wartime sentiments of the time. It was seen by many in britain as a 'stab in the back', (fuelled by fleetstreet portrayals of Irish Republicanism as thuggish, murderous and so on). The actions of the british govt in respect to Ireland had wide support in britain - hence the calls for a new force to deal with the 'murderous cowards'.

Later on when the scale of atrocities and the general reputation the not-so-noble new force of auxillaries/black and tans began to drift back home the more liberal aspects of british society then began to question the wisdom in their formation and assignment to Ireland. At the time of the rising however and immediate aftermath I have seen no evidence that the british public were not generally in support of their govt's behaviour.

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

I would disagree with that. I believe they were, bearing in mind the pumped up jingo-istic wartime sentiments of the time. It was seen by many in britain as a 'stab in the back', (fuelled by fleetstreet portrayals of Irish Republicanism as thuggish, murderous and so on). The actions of the british govt in respect to Ireland had wide support in britain - hence the calls for a new force to deal with the 'murderous cowards'.

Later on when the scale of atrocities and the general reputation the not-so-noble new force of auxillaries/black and tans began to drift back home the more liberal aspects of british society then began to question the wisdom in their formation and assignment to Ireland. At the time of the rising however and immediate aftermath I have seen no evidence that the british public were not generally in support of their govt's behaviour.

OK, I must admit I have found nothing that gives a view either way other than the eventual outcry over the black and tans.

its a very busy and complicated time in British history for the reason's Dolanbaker gives.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

OK, I must admit I have found nothing that gives a view either way other than the eventual outcry over the black and tans.

its a very busy and complicated time in British history for the reason's Dolanbaker gives.

Probably worth pointing out that the mainstream Irish media of the time were (speaking of the response to the rising specifically) only slightly better (though the levels of informed public opinion in Ireland were obviously far highter than among the british public) ;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/newspapers/index.shtml

Busy and complicated time in our history too (for all of the reasons above).

MarchDub

ilkhanid wrote: »

It was'nt that the fact that the British had not left that caused the chaos. It was the fact that the North was divided into Unionist and Nationalist. If it had been ethnically homogenous there would have been no trouble at all.Conversely, the fact that the Unionist population in the South either emigrated or kept their heads down contributed to a lack of further trouble.

The social tension in Northern Ireland did not happen in a vacuum and neither did the peace in the Free State.

In Northern Ireland the tension was primarily caused by lack of legislative representation for the Catholic minority. All this was done under the British presence and within the boundaries of the UK. Gerrymandering of districts, lowest paying jobs, no one man one vote policy - and segregation of housing districts, all contributed to the eventual chaos. Attempts by Catholics - there is a clear paper trail of petitions from the 1930s - to alert Westminster were all met with refusal to act. I would also add that a brave attempt by a group of Englishmen and women within the British Labour Party [Friends of Ireland] in the late 1940s to try to help the Catholics of Northern Ireland also went nowhere in Westminster circles.

In the south the situation for the Protestant minority was not met by the same shut out from power and economic participation.

MarchDub

Morlar wrote: »

Probably worth pointing out that the mainstream Irish media of the time were (speaking of the response to the rising specifically) only slightly better (though the levels of informed public opinion in Ireland were obviously far highter than among the british public) ;



Busy and complicated time in our history too (for all of the reasons above).

In Ireland the general public did not trust the "mainstream" papers you quote from...note also that you posted from a "British" site. These papers were in the hands of unionists. The main reason that De Valera founded the Irish Press was so that an "Irish" point of view would be represented in the daily news. That was his stated intention and it took years for those other newspapers, Irish Times, Independent, to reflect an Irish world view.

Check out the history of Irish "nationalist" newspapers like The Nation, Sinn Fein etc. The Brits kept shutting them down. Didn't want that point of view to be in print.

Morlar

MarchDub wrote: »

In Ireland the general public did not trust the "mainstream" papers you quote from...note also that you posted from a "British" site.

I did not say that they did. In fact I said that the Irish public were far better informed than their english counterparts.

Yes I do know the bbc is a british source. However the content in the example I provided was (mainly) direct from contemporary mainstream Irish media of the day.

MarchDub wrote: »

These papers were in the hands of unionists.

I actually typed in a comment in that last post about how the Irish papers would not have been permitted to flourish had they been more openly pro-republican but it seemed like a moot /pedantic point so I backspaced it before posting.

MarchDub wrote: »

The main reason that De Valera founded the Irish Press was so that an "Irish" point of view would be represented in the daily news. That was his stated intention and it took years for those other newspapers, Irish Times, Independent, to reflect an Irish world view.

Check out the history of Irish "nationalist" newspapers like The Nation, Sinn Fein etc. The Brits kept shutting them down. Didn't want that point of view to be in print.

I am aware of non mainstream Irish publications of the time (ie Republican ones) - and even went googling for some good examples that sprang to mind from memory but could not find any online, which was why that post only contained the more mainstream sources (as was stated in the post itself).

Fratton Fred

Surely if you view the "Manistream" press as being biased towards the unionists, the republican and nationalist press should be viewed in the same way.

Any media oganisation set up to get the point of view of its editor/owner across is never going to be neutral no matter how much you like what it says.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Surely if you view the "Manistream" press as being biased towards the unionists, the republican and nationalist press should be viewed in the same way.

Any media oganisation set up to get the point of view of its editor/owner across is never going to be neutral no matter how much you like what it says.

I use the word mainstream (in the posts above) in the contemporary sense - meaning at that time 'legal and accepted by the british' - not in the conventional sense of mainstream media being the most widespread or reflective of the most commonly held viewpoints.

The republican press were an antidote to the above and yes they would have been more slanted than a truly independent press should have been. I think to a lesser extent the same would be true for any Loyalist publication the only reason for which would be it reflected a loyalist view too extreme for the legal 'pro-union' press.

McArmalite

ilkhanid wrote: »

"Conversely, in Ireland once the British left 26 counties there was peace in that region. It was in the still occupied 6 that chaos broke out."
It was'nt that the fact that the British had not left that caused the chaos. It was the fact that the North was divided into Unionist and Nationalist. If it had been ethnically homogenous there would have been no trouble at all.Conversely, the fact that the Unionist population in the South either emigrated or kept their heads down contributed to a lack of further trouble.

Yes indeed it was in the occupied counties of the northeast that inter community violence broke out, unlike the south where it was a fight between 2 wings of nationalism of differing views as to the outcome of the treaty.
But unionist in and out of british uniforms using violence against nationalists in the northeast was going on long before partition ever came about, ever hear of the B Specials, orange order, plantation of Ulster etc

As for the unionists on the otehr side of the border. Before partition they were doing as much mouthing as their brethern in the north east, remember Carson was from Dublin, but when britian said we're going, you'll ahve to fight to the death on your own etc, etc...no fight out of them then

ilkhanid wrote: »

No. We would have had just another-longer and more bitter-civil war,between different sides..

So who would have fought who ? The IRA against the 32 county Free State Army when a 32 county Ireland had been achieved ?? And don't tell me the unionists against the Nationalist Ireland

Regardless, now why'll be in for " britain the benign, benevolent well meaning friend etc, etc, etc "..........ZZZZZZZZ

( BTW, are you Kevin Meyers or Ruth Dudley Edwards or Conor Cruise O'Brien or by any chance ? )

ilkhanid

"And don't tell me the unionists against the Nationalist Ireland"
As a matter of fact..yes.

"are you Kevin Meyers or Ruth Dudley Edwards or Conor Cruise O'Brien or by any chance ? |"
Flattered....but ,no, I'm not.