The British Empire Thread

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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"?

Anomosity between various groups had it's historical roots before the british annexed the country, but much of the secterianism was maintained by the british strategy to gain and hold control of the large territory of India by keeping its people divided along lines of religion, language, or caste, by the imposition of puppet princely ruled petty states throughout the country. However by the 1900's most of the animosities of times past had faded due to the belief that they would be more than well able to govern themselves peacefully and not need britain to dictate to them.

You see the problem with too many of todays brits is that they still like to fool themselves with jingoism and national conceit. Instead of seeing the british empire for what it was- the cancer of humanity - they still like to cling onto for most of their lives that they are still some sort of superpower in some way and that conniving with the Americans to inflict mass murder on people the other side of the world is something to be proud of.

McArmalite

ilkhanid wrote: »

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

And they'd have put up as much fight as their brave comrades did in Donegal *, Monaghan, Cavan, Leitrim, Dublin etc

ilkhanid wrote: »

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

" Flattered ". Most people would be embrassed to be associated with them :cool:


*(BTW, here's a little link on the Donegal unionists before partition, " NO SURRENDER " etc, etc, etc No fight out of them when britain was casting the boat out though http://www.askaboutireland.ie/show_narrative_page.do?page_id=3933)

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

You see the problem with too many of todays brits is that they still like to fool themselves with jingoism and national conceit. Instead of seeing the british empire for what it was- the cancer of humanity - they still like to cling onto for most of their lives that they are still some sort of superpower in some way and that conniving with the Americans to inflict mass murder on people the other side of the world is something to be proud of.

Maybe, but the trouble with too many Irish Nationalists is that they are so full of ****e that no one actually gives a **** what they say. Maybe if some of them could engage in normal dialogue without having to constantly go off on a rant people might take them seriously.

Shame really, because a lot of Nationalists have a good point to make, but as always, the loud minority give the majority a bad name.:)

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Maybe, but the trouble with too many Irish Nationalists is that they are so full of ****e that no one actually gives a **** what they say. Maybe if some of them could engage in normal dialogue without having to constantly go off on a rant people might take them seriously.

Shame really, because a lot of Nationalists have a good point to make, but as always, the loud minority give the majority a bad name.:)

You characterize Irish nationalists but fail to also characterize British nationalists in the same way. McArmalite is correct is saying that many in today's Britain operate under an ignorant and ill informed assumption that the Empire was a force for justice and civilization. They believe their own propaganda.

Just yesterday I was watching MSNBC [US cable] and Joe Klein of Time magazine made the point that the modern problem in India/Pakistan/Afghanistan can be traced to the mess the British Empire left behind. He is a well respected US journalist and is widely travelled. Another person, Pat Buchanan, on the panel agreed with this. When a BBC reporter - Kathy Kay - came on she was literally flabbergasted at such an idea. She stumbled around and said that "most people" [her won words not backed by any figures] would "probably" disagree that the British Empire was ever at fault. The point is she could not understand - did not have the background - to question the self promoted myth of the "goodness" of the Empire.

This attitude by the British - the refusal to address their own violent past - is what makes many others react with extreme positions.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

You characterize Irish nationalists but fail to also characterize British nationalists in the same way. McArmalite is correct is saying that many in today's Britain operate under an ignorant and ill informed assumption that the Empire was a force for justice and civilization. They believe their own propaganda.

Just yesterday I was watching MSNBC [US cable] and Joe Klein of Time magazine made the point that the modern problem in India/Pakistan/Afghanistan can be traced to the mess the British Empire left behind. He is a well respected US journalist and is widely travelled. Another person, Pat Buchanan, on the panel agreed with this. When a BBC reporter - Kathy Kay - came on she was literally flabbergasted at such an idea. She stumbled around and said that "most people" [her won words not backed by any figures] would "probably" disagree that the British Empire was ever at fault. The point is she could not understand - did not have the background - to question the self promoted myth of the "goodness" of the Empire.

This attitude by the British - the refusal to address their own violent past - is what makes many others react with extreme positions.

maybe they do, maybe they don't, I'm not going to argue that point.

People just like embarrassing the British to make themselves feel better, that's all it is. What do you want, every British person to walk around like the Hary enfield character, constantly apologising to everyone he meets for the actions of his country in the past?

Actually, yes you probably do, but you should question why you do, what difference does it make other than giving you the warm satifaction of scoring points of your neighbour?

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What do you want, every British person to walk around like the Hary enfield character, constantly apologising to everyone he meets for the actions of his country in the past?

I doubt that would be enough for some people, Good thing they don't have the nuclear bomb! :rolleyes:

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

maybe they do, maybe they don't, I'm not going to argue that point.

People just like embarrassing the British to make themselves feel better, that's all it is. What do you want, every British person to walk around like the Hary enfield character, constantly apologising to everyone he meets for the actions of his country in the past?

Actually, yes you probably do, but you should question why you do, what difference does it make other than giving you the warm satifaction of scoring points of your neighbour?

You are making an absurd statement - and wildly invalid accusations about my purpose. This is a historical thread with a specific discussion on the British Empire - why can you not acknowledge our exchange to be within this circumstance? That certainly is the context within which I am adding to the discussion. We are not meeting in Bewleys and just having causal random talk about the weather and oh by the way, what do you think of the Brit Empire?

Context, please , context.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

You are making an absurd statement - and wildly invalid accusations about my purpose. This is a historical thread with a specific discussion on the British Empire - why can you not acknowledge our exchange to be within this circumstance? That certainly is the context within which I am adding to the discussion. We are not meeting in Bewleys and just having causal random talk about the weather and oh by the way, what do you think of the Brit Empire?

Context, please , context.

why not read the first pages of this thread, I have made my point there, in context.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

why not read the first pages of this thread, I have made my point there, in context.

I am answering for my own posts only, and my intentions. The fact that you see the discussion as "pointless" in a broader context does not negate its contextual validity - or the right of anyone here to disseminate their knowledge of the periods under discussion.

You have the right to ignore or not read any thread which you do not think relevant to you - but not the right to declare it invalid or censored.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

I am answering for my own posts only, and my intentions. The fact that you see the discussion as "pointless" in a broader context does not negate its contextual validity - or the right of anyone here to disseminate their knowledge of the periods under discussion.

You have the right to ignore or not read any thread which you do not think relevant to you - but not the right to declare it invalid or censored.

what

ilkhanid

"but much of the secterianism was maintained by the british strategy to gain and hold control of the large territory of India by keeping its people divided along lines of religion, language, or caste, by the imposition of puppet princely ruled petty states throughout the country."

Once again...they were already divided. These petty states already existed, the British did'nt magic them into existence. And India is still divided:There is massive tension betwen Muslims amd Hindus. This goes back to the age of the Mughals-and beyond-when the Muslims imposed their authority on the resentful Hindus. In addition,back in the70s there was the Sikh uprising and terrorism. And there is still a massive gulf between the castes. This has existed for about three thouand years, but no doubt the British are responsible for this too. The British ruled India for barely two hundred years, in Indian historical terms a few minutes.To ascribe all of deep-seated and long-lasting problems inherent in the culture, history, economy and religions of the sub-continent to one factor is daft. If anybody seriously believes that if the British had never set foot in India that it would today be a peaceful,united, happy state, then they are fantasizing. The Indians have had 60 years to work these things out but some of these divisions are as bad as ever and show no signs of resolution which would indicate that these are not superficial
problems.

And as for this "And they'd have put up as much fight as their brave comrades did in Donegal, Monaghan, Cavan, Leitrim, Dublin etc"
Here we have this demeaning stereotyope of the Unionist population as cowardly fools. The Unionists in these areas were isolated and knew they had no chance of resisting the new order in Ireland. If the British had tried to impose a united Ireland, the Unionists would have fought. Partition was coming , one way or the other, the only things that would have differed is where the border would lie.

getz

MarchDub wrote: »

You characterize Irish nationalists but fail to also characterize British nationalists in the same way. McArmalite is correct is saying that many in today's Britain operate under an ignorant and ill informed assumption that the Empire was a force for justice and civilization. They believe their own propaganda.

Just yesterday I was watching MSNBC [US cable] and Joe Klein of Time magazine made the point that the modern problem in India/Pakistan/Afghanistan can be traced to the mess the British Empire left behind. He is a well respected US journalist and is widely travelled. Another person, Pat Buchanan, on the panel agreed with this. When a BBC reporter - Kathy Kay - came on she was literally flabbergasted at such an idea. She stumbled around and said that "most people" [her won words not backed by any figures] would "probably" disagree that the British Empire was ever at fault. The point is she could not understand - did not have the background - to question the self promoted myth of the "goodness" of the Empire.

This attitude by the British - the refusal to address their own violent past - is what makes many others react with extreme positions.

do you honistly believe any brit cares or is interested about the british empire ?its not enything that any of us even think about ,the only people who care about it in the world is the irish,the rest of us carry on living ,now if you talk about the commonwealth thats different every country wants to be part of it[except the irish republic] -and one day that may change

MarchDub

getz wrote: »

do you honistly believe any brit cares or is interested about the british empire ?its not enything that any of us even think about ,the only people who care about it in the world is the irish,the rest of us carry on living ,now if you talk about the commonwealth thats different every country wants to be part of it[except the irish republic] -and one day that may change

Seems to me that you and a lot of others on this board who rage at any pejorative take on the historic record of the Empire care a great deal - or you would not be on here doing your daily denials.

"It's not anything that any of us even think about"? Who are you trying to kid? You're sure not fooling me. Your actions - and reactions- do not say this. Why are you on there having fits about Irish historians' views if you don't care? This is an Irish history forum and you check it on a regular basis and get furious at what is posted if it impinges on your world view. You sure seem to me to have a dog in this race - and he's not doing well.

"History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awaken" - James Joyce.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

You are making an absurd statement - and wildly invalid accusations about my purpose. This is a historical thread with a specific discussion on the British Empire - why can you not acknowledge our exchange to be within this circumstance? That certainly is the context within which I am adding to the discussion. We are not meeting in Bewleys and just having causal random talk about the weather and oh by the way, what do you think of the Brit Empire?

Context, please , context.

Look, as I said earlier in this thread, Britain had an empire, as did many other countries. If you look back 150 to 200 years, pretty much every country either had an empire or was part of of one. Was Britain worse than other empires? no I don't think it was, it was just bigger.

Yes, a lot of attrocities were carried out in the name of the empire, but they were in the name of prety much every other empire from the Romans forward, that's kind of how empires were built. If the British were not doing it, someone else would have. If you look at the Caribbean as an example, The French, Spanish and Portugese all had colonies there and the slave rade was done on supply and demand, so if the Spanish, for example, had taken control of the islands the British had, then those slaves would still have been taken, the indigenous population would still have disappeared, nothing would have changed other than those islands would now speak Spanish rather than english. In addition, if you look at the former Spanish colonies, they generally have fared a lot worse than the former Britih ones.


How many people in Ireland know about Francisco Pizarro? or St Bartholemews day Massacre, The Setif massacre or how about the exploits of Alfonso De Albequerque (SP?). very little I would suspect, but it is worth reading about these events to get some "Context" as you put it.

If you were an Arab, or an African the British Empire meant nothing, it was just part of the scourge that was the Europeans conquering the world. The whole of Europe was doing it, even the Irish, but conveniently enough, under another flag.

McArmalite is a Napoleon fan and has contributed on threads about irish soldiers fighting for the french armies. What were they doing? spreading peace, love and handing out shamrock, or conquering, raping and looting?

Eeryone was at it, does it make it right? no of course it does not, but to think the British were the only ones doing it, or that it would not have happened if the British were not involved is crazy. In fact, I would say that the British were a lot less brutal than some of the other countries and to an extent, lessened the impact of the other empirical nations.

read the history of Trinidad and make your own mind up.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Look, as I said earlier in this thread, Britain had an empire, as did many other countries. If you look back 150 to 200 years, pretty much every country either had an empire or was part of of one. Was Britain worse than other empires? no I don't think it was, it was just bigger.

Yes, a lot of attrocities were carried out in the name of the empire, but they were in the name of prety much every other empire from the Romans forward, that's kind of how empires were built. If the British were not doing it, someone else would have. If you look at the Caribbean as an example, The French, Spanish and Portugese all had colonies there and the slave rade was done on supply and demand, so if the Spanish, for example, had taken control of the islands the British had, then those slaves would still have been taken, the indigenous population would still have disappeared, nothing would have changed other than those islands would now speak Spanish rather than english. In addition, if you look at the former Spanish colonies, they generally have fared a lot worse than the former Britih ones.


How many people in Ireland know about Francisco Pizarro? or St Bartholemews day Massacre, The Setif massacre or how about the exploits of Alfonso De Albequerque (SP?). very little I would suspect, but it is worth reading about these events to get some "Context" as you put it.


Eeryone was at it, does it make it right? no of course it does not, but to think the British were the only ones doing it, or that it would not have happened if the British were not involved is crazy. In fact, I would say that the British were a lot less brutal than some of the other countries and to an extent, lessened the impact of the other empirical nations.

read the history of Trinidad and make your own mind up.

I have no issue with the comparative ugliness or brutality of the British Empire compared to any other Empire. I agree that imperialism as carried out by the Europeans was xenophobic and violent. But one of the problems with the propaganda of the Brits - even today - is that they claim to have been "different" and "better" in that they were doing good in their empire - spreading democracy and civilization. The historic record certainly does not bear this out. In fact, my position is that they were as bad as all the other imperial powers and certainly NOT better.

Anyone familiar with Irish history certainly knows of massacres beyond these shores - the St. Bartholomew's for example impacted directly on Ireland as it brought the Huguenots to Ireland. Where do you think names like Bewleys came from?


But the important issue here also is what was done in Ireland and the record of abuse and violence, the divide and conquer method [a hallmark of the British Empire] were all carried out in Ireland. The history of Ireland is brutal because of English policy. That some Irish were employed in the Empire is also not in dispute but the masters were the English. The rules were set at Westminster. Even jobs at Dublin Castle were only open to native Irish at middle and lower levels. The very top jobs [real power] went to English only - this hierarchal rule was enacted by law and remained law until the dissolution of British power in the 1920s.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

I have no issue with the comparative ugliness or brutality of the British Empire compared to any other Empire. I agree that imperialism as carried out by the Europeans was xenophobic and violent. But one of the problems with the propaganda of the Brits - even today - is that they claim to have been "different" and "better" in that they were doing good in their empire - spreading democracy and civilization. The historic record certainly does not bear this out. In fact, my position is that they were as bad as all the other imperial powers and certainly NOT better.

so your problem is not with the British Empire, it is the way you perceive it to be looked at by the British.

You are the one saying to keep this in context, what has that got to do with historical debate?

MarchDub wrote: »

Anyone familiar with Irish history certainly knows of massacres beyond these shores - the St. Bartholomew's for example impacted directly on Ireland as it brought the Huguenots to Ireland. Where do you think names like Bewleys came from?

are you sure about that, because I have heard people talk of the Huguenots and not relate them to being Protestants, settlers or the victims of oppression.

MarchDub wrote: »

But the important issue here also is what was done in Ireland and the record of abuse and violence, the divide and conquer method [a hallmark of the British Empire] were all carried out in Ireland. The history of Ireland is brutal because of English policy. That some Irish were employed in the Empire is also not in dispute but the masters were the English. The rules were set at Westminster. Even jobs at Dublin Castle were only open to native Irish at middle and lower levels. The very top jobs [real power] went to English only - this hierarchal rule was enacted by law and remained law until the dissolution of British power in the 1920s.

I would have said that was a hallmark of empirical rule the world over. How did Ireland differ to anywhere else, under british rule, french Rule or Dutch rule?

Obviously Irish history is only violent because of the British, there were no wars or conflicts in this island until the British came along. I suppose the irish people all waltzed around preaching the word of god and reading poetry :rolleyes:

wasn't there some guy called Brian who could be a bit aggressive at times....?

McArmalite

ilkhanid wrote: »

"but much of the secterianism was maintained by the british strategy to gain and hold control of the large territory of India by keeping its people divided along lines of religion, language, or caste, by the imposition of puppet princely ruled petty states throughout the country."

I can understand someone just quoting a sentence or two of a post as they wish to dispute a point, but just quoting part of a sentence so that they can add their usual Kevin Meyersism's is so blatantly misleading that Kevin would be very proud of it.

" Anomosity between various groups had it's historical roots before the british annexed the country, but much of the secterianism was maintained by the british strategy to gain and hold control of the large territory of India by keeping its people divided along lines of religion, language, or caste, by the imposition of puppet princely ruled petty states throughout the country "

ilkhanid wrote: »

Once again...they were already divided. These petty states already existed, the British did'nt magic them into existence.

Yes, as stated - " Anomosity between various groups had it's historical roots before the british annexed the country "

ilkhanid wrote: »

And India is still divided:There is massive tension betwen Muslims amd Hindus. This goes back to the age of the Mughals-and beyond-when the Muslims imposed their authority on the resentful Hindus. In addition,back in the70s there was the Sikh uprising and terrorism. And there is still a massive gulf between the castes. This has existed for about three thouand years, but no doubt the British are responsible for this too. The British ruled India for barely two hundred years, in Indian historical terms a few minutes.To ascribe all of deep-seated and long-lasting problems inherent in the culture, history, economy and religions of the sub-continent to one factor is daft. If anybody seriously believes that if the British had never set foot in India that it would today be a peaceful,united, happy state, then they are fantasizing. The Indians have had 60 years to work these things out but some of these divisions are as bad as ever and show no signs of resolution which would indicate that these are not superficial problems.

India, often called a sub continent, is a huge country containing many religions, languages and ethnic diversity. Naturally throughout history their has been many conflicts, territorial disputes etc.

Today India is a federal republic comprising twenty-eight states and seven union territories and the world's largest democracy. It's not a prefect Utopia ( where is ?) having such a diverse population of which 138 million are Muslims. Regrettably conflicts break out between ethnic groups from time to to time ( we Europeans cannot lecture anyone on that) but nothing whatsoever on the scale of the partition of India in 1947 engineered by britian, with an estimated deaths of 500,000 and 14 - 17 million refugees.

ilkhanid wrote: »

And as for this "And they'd have put up as much fight as their brave comrades did in Donegal, Monaghan, Cavan, Leitrim, Dublin etc"
Here we have this demeaning stereotyope of the Unionist population as cowardly fools. The Unionists in these areas were isolated and knew they had no chance of resisting the new order in Ireland. If the British had tried to impose a united Ireland, the Unionists would have fought. Partition was coming , one way or the other, the only things that would have differed is where the border would lie.

Oh Gawd !!!!!! and they were going to slaughter everyone if they didn't get down Garvagh Road, if the Anglo Irish agreement wasn't dropped, if the cap badge of the RUC was changed :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:................ ( Gotta go, will get back to this later )

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

McArmalite is a Napoleon fan and has contributed on threads about irish soldiers fighting for the french armies. What were they doing? spreading peace, love and handing out shamrock, or conquering, raping and looting?

I have posted a thread on Irishmen and their names on the Arc de Triomphe who served in the Revolutionary of France under the motto " Liberty, equality, fraternity ". If they were interested in raping and looting, they would have joined the british army now wouldn't they ??

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Obviously Irish history is only violent because of the British, there were no wars or conflicts in this island until the British came along. I suppose the irish people all waltzed around preaching the word of god and reading poetry :rolleyes:

Anomosity between various groups had it's historical roots before the british annexed the country, but the secterianism was maintained by the british strategy to gain and hold control of the territory of Ireland by keeping its people divided along lines of religion. So are you going to tell me that the Plantation of Ulster, Partition etc was not a policy devised, enforced and maintained by britain ?? Ofcourse you are

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Anomosity between various groups had it's historical roots before the british annexed the country, but the secterianism was maintained by the british strategy to gain and hold control of the territory of Ireland by keeping its people divided along lines of religion. So are you going to tell me that the Plantation of Ulster, Partition etc was not a policy devised, enforced and maintained by britain ?? Ofcourse you are

no I'm not, but that is completely out of context.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so your problem is not with the British Empire, it is the way you perceive it to be looked at by the British.

You are the one saying to keep this in context, what has that got to do with historical debate?

are you sure about that, because I have heard people talk of the Huguenots and not relate them to being Protestants, settlers or the victims of oppression.

I would have said that was a hallmark of empirical rule the world over. How did Ireland differ to anywhere else, under british rule, french Rule or Dutch rule?

Obviously Irish history is only violent because of the British, there were no wars or conflicts in this island until the British came along. I suppose the irish people all waltzed around preaching the word of god and reading poetry :rolleyes:

wasn't there some guy called Brian who could be a bit aggressive at times....?

If you insist on misreading my posts like this I will end this exchange - and quick, because it is pointless to continue. You ignored my position as stated regarding the British Empire in relation to the other European Empires.

To answer your other charges:
The first pierce of recorded propaganda by the English on this island was written by Giraldus Cambrensis - his job was to depict the Irish as uncivilized and in chaos and in need of conquest by the English. Irish historians have rejected this piece of nonsense from the get go. The Irish annals do not reflect the situation that Giraldus describes. Yet English history books continue to paint this picture - aided by a raft of Elizabethan English historians who piled on the lies.

Know your history - Brian Boru was a clever tactician who kept the Brehons on his side by not using violence in order to gain the High Kingship. It was against Brehon Law to take by violent means the territory of others. The Brehons would refuse to give a legitimate title to such a "stranger in sovereignty". Brian did not use force in order to get what he wanted. In 1002 when he was finally declared to be "Emperor of the Irish" [Imperator Scottorum] at Armagh he had succeeded by the use of alliances and very little force.

Because of Ireland's relative isolation from the rest of Europe and the lack of Roman influence, weaponry - and serious warfare- had not developed in Ireland so the violence of European style warfare was unknown until the English incursions. Armour, cross bows, marching in formation were aspects of a more bloody and destructive style of war that was common throughout Europe at the time but unknown in Ireland. This was one of the reasons why it was easy for the Anglo-Normans to have [initially] easy success in taking over large areas of the country. The cross bows were deadly and effective.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

If you insist on misreading my posts like this I will end this exchange - and quick, because it is pointless to continue. You ignored my position as stated regarding the British Empire in relation to the other European Empires.

that is your right. I noted your position on the British empire, as i suspect you have noted mine. you say that Britain was not better, but you have offered nothing to back that up.

MarchDub wrote: »

To answer your other charges:
The first pierce of recorded propaganda by the English on this island was written by Giraldus Cambrensis - his job was to depict the Irish as uncivilized and in chaos and in need of conquest by the English. Irish historians have rejected this piece of nonsense from the get go. The Irish annals do not reflect the situation that Giraldus describes. Yet English history books continue to paint this picture - aided by a raft of Elizabethan English historians who piled on the lies.

Know your history - Brian Boru was a clever tactician who kept the Brehons on his side by not using violence in order to gain the High Kingship. It was against Brehon Law to take by violent means the territory of others. The Brehons would refuse to give a legitimate title to such a "stranger in sovereignty". Brian did not use force in order to get what he wanted. In 1002 when he was finally declared to be "Emperor of the Irish" [Imperator Scottorum] at Armagh he had succeeded by the use of alliances and very little force.

Because of Ireland's relative isolation from the rest of Europe and the lack of Roman influence, weaponry - and serious warfare- had not developed in Ireland so the violence of European style warfare was unknown until the English incursions. Armour, cross bows, marching in formation were aspects of a more bloody and destructive style of war that was common throughout Europe at the time but unknown in Ireland. This was one of the reasons why it was easy for the Anglo-Normans to have [initially] easy success in taking over large areas of the country. The cross bows were deadly and effective.

what other charges? this thread is about the British empire and you go back to a Welsh minister (Not English, he was of Nroman/Welsh blood) who wrote an article about the irish being barbaric.

I'm sure Brian Boru was a clever tactician, assemble an army much larger than your enemies is a very good tactic. You have a very rose tinted view of older Irish history. Ireland may not have had the technology that was developed in the rest of europe, but to try and paint Ireland as a peace loving island is ridiculous. Wesley Johnston seem to be respected enough to quote, if not there are plenty of other examples of the ongoing conflicts in Ireland between the different kings.

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/history/norman_invasion.html

As discussed in the previous section, Dairmait Mac Murchada the King of Leinster had been expelled from Ireland after being defeated by King Rory O'Connor of Connacht and the Dubliners. A ruthless warrior now humiliated by defeat, Mac Murchada's only goal was to win back his Kingdom. With this in mind, he sailed to Britain and sought a meeting with King Henry 2nd of England in 1166, in the hope that Henry might help him in his quest.

this is off topic though, this thread is about the British Empire, not about the history of Ireland which was, in reality, a very small side show in comparison.

Hookey

MarchDub wrote: »

I have no issue with the comparative ugliness or brutality of the British Empire compared to any other Empire. I agree that imperialism as carried out by the Europeans was xenophobic and violent. But one of the problems with the propaganda of the Brits - even today - is that they claim to have been "different" and "better" in that they were doing good in their empire - spreading democracy and civilization. The historic record certainly does not bear this out. In fact, my position is that they were as bad as all the other imperial powers and certainly NOT better.

Depends what you mean by "better". There's not really an objective way to measure how "bad" a particular empire was, even in comparison to its contemporary rivals, never mind empires separated by time. The British will always be the worst to an Irishman because its simply the only empire that's relevant, and if you asked a Bolivian or a Ukrainian you'd get different answers, usually, like the Yorkshiremen in the Monty Python sketch, all comparing who had the worse lot.

There's also the problem that some empires are rather more monolithic than others, and of course that empires themselves change over time (e.g. British India under Warren Hastings was a very different place to say, Lord Lytton's era), and space (the colonial experience in Canada was rather different to say, Bengal), so you can't pin down something as "The British Empire" and describe it as a single entity. Indeed, certainly in the latter stages of the empire, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that the British (particularly the general public but also a lot of the ruling elites) were stuck with something they didn't want, couldn't control and cost a fortune.

And this is where the British attitude of "but our empire was better" comes from. Britain was the first country in the world to have a significant middle-class, and they were the ones who got the Royal Navy onto anti-slavery duty, paid for the missionaries in Africa, and the explorers, and all the other things that made them feel good about themselves. Sure, they were as racist and patronising as hell by our standards (but any middle-class Irishman of the period was the same), but the only way the middle-classes could square the circle of empire was by turning it into a moral crusade. All the other countries with contemporary empires didn't have this mindset; the Russians were barely fuedal, ditto the Spanish and the Ottomans, the French had lost to the British from the Seven Years War onwards and overseas empires were ruled as fiefdoms. The Germans and Belgians came late to empire and provided the worst examples of cruelty simply because they had empires as status symbols rather than because they needed them for trade. Austria-Hungary, despite its historic legacy as a kind of comic-opera, at least had a logical raison d'etre, the welding of diverse peoples in the face of the Ottoman "threat" (we forget the Turks were outside Vienna as late as 1683).

I think what I'm trying to say is that while the Irish experience will always mean the British Empire was the worst, there are sound reasons, some even justifiable, why the British will see it as the best, because even if only to a small extent, the petite bourgeoisie, had an influence over how it was run, something you can't really say about any of the other European empires.

McArmalite

getz wrote: »

do you honistly believe any brit cares or is interested about the british empire ?its not enything that any of us even think about ,the only people who care about it in the world is the irish,the rest of us carry on living

And then this is the country who have every TV broadcaster, soccer player, pop idol wannabe wearing a feckin' poppy for 4 or 5 weeks of the year honouring soldiers of the past who fought for the Empire ??

getz wrote: »

,now if you talk about the commonwealth thats different every country wants to be part of it[except the irish republic] -and one day that may change

EVERY COUNTRY WANTS TO BE A PART OF IT ?? Amazing, didn't know America, Japan, Slovakia, Mexico, Eygpt, etc ,etc, etc want to join the commonwealth

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

And then this is the country who have every TV broadcaster, soccer player, pop idol wannabe wearing a feckin' poppy for 4 or 5 weeks of the year honouring soldiers of the past who fought for the Empire ??

honouring war dead actually, including many thousands who were conscripted. I can see why you may slate an irishman for wearing a poppy, but not a Brit whose forefathers would have been subject to conscription.

McArmalite wrote: »

EVERY COUNTRY WANTS TO BE A PART OF IT ?? Amazing, didn't know America, Japan, Slovakia, Mexico, Eygpt, etc ,etc, etc want to join the commonwealth

every country who is entitled to be a member, with two exceptions, are members.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that is your right. I noted your position on the British empire, as i suspect you have noted mine. you say that Britain was not better, but you have offered nothing to back that up.



what other charges? this thread is about the British empire and you go back to a Welsh minister (Not English, he was of Nroman/Welsh blood) who wrote an article about the irish being barbaric.

I'm sure Brian Boru was a clever tactician, assemble an army much larger than your enemies is a very good tactic. You have a very rose tinted view of older Irish history. Ireland may not have had the technology that was developed in the rest of europe, but to try and paint Ireland as a peace loving island is ridiculous. Wesley Johnston seem to be respected enough to quote, if not there are plenty of other examples of the ongoing conflicts in Ireland between the different kings.

this is off topic though, this thread is about the British Empire, not about the history of Ireland which was, in reality, a very small side show in comparison.

Johnson is inaccurate on a number of points and is actually referencing Giraldus [no surprise there] in his personal description of MacMurrough whose problem was not that he was a "ruthless warrior" but he had an affair with O'Rourk's wife who then saw to it that MacMurrough was expelled from his kingdom of Leinster - not Ireland. The Irish annals read like a soap opera for this event. MacMurrough then went to Henry II for help in getting his Kingdom of Leinster back but made the most colossal miscalculation in not knowing the nature of the Anglo-Normans whose foreign policy would be territorial expansion and the eventual building of empire.

Giraldus was Anglo-Norman from the Welsh region but was ethnically Norman and travelled to Ireland with Henry II as part of the propaganda arm of the invasion. He wrote books - not an aricle - on the Irish incursions by the English King. This was his job - to support the initial incursion and justify the continuing presence of the English.

There is no dispute at all by me that there was conflict between a number of regional kings for the High Kingship but the point is this type of conflict was nothing compared to what the Anglo-Norman invasion eventually wrought on the island.

Brigantes

Fratton Fred wrote: »

this is off topic though, this thread is about the British Empire, not about the history of Ireland which was, in reality, a very small side show in comparison.

I'm joining this thread fairly late on so apologies if I'm duplicating posts, but I didn't notice any mention of:

Rule of Law
As opposed to 'democracy'. Could you argue that the British Empire encouraged and developed jurisprudence per se and legal structures that have remained today in ex-Empire colonies? Clearly, the rule of law in question was British and was imposed. My point is that the structures and concepts remained long after the empire crumbled.

Transport Infrastructure
India's rail network undoubtedly is the best example of the transport legacy of the British Empire. Interesting wikipedia Irish railway map.

Trade structure
European Empires were all about trade, income and wealth; the British Empire wouldn't have been so vast if it wasn't for the Industrial Revolution. Have ex-colonies benefitted from British Empire trade routes and structures? Again, clearly the trade was designed to profit British institutions and individuals but there were crumbs left for the national middle-classes. Socialism emerged across C20th Europe as a reaction to Empire economics, yet capitalism encouraged by Empire endured.

Developing merchant/middle classes
As above, industrial developments encouraged a burgeoning mercantile class in Britain and in each colony. Has the legacy of that been a positive thing?

Education system
Again, the Victorian determination to 'educate the natives' espoused by Thomas Babington Macaulay leaves an nasty taste in the mouth. Could you argue that the (admittedly prescribed) scientific method taught across the British Empire has left a culture of learning in numerous countries and some venerable universities and colleges?

Language
The English language was forced upon colonies. I maintain that without it none of the above would have been possible nor endured.

MarchDub

Brigantes wrote: »

I'm joining this thread fairly late on so apologies if I'm duplicating posts, but I didn't notice any mention of:

Rule of Law
As opposed to 'democracy'. Could you argue that the British Empire encouraged and developed jurisprudence per se and legal structures that have remained today in ex-Empire colonies? Clearly, the rule of law in question was British and was imposed. My point is that the structures and concepts remained long after the empire crumbled.

Transport Infrastructure
India's rail network undoubtedly is the best example of the transport legacy of the British Empire. Interesting wikipedia Irish railway map.

Trade structure
European Empires were all about trade, income and wealth; the British Empire wouldn't have been so vast if it wasn't for the Industrial Revolution. Have ex-colonies benefitted from British Empire trade routes and structures? Again, clearly the trade was designed to profit British institutions and individuals but there were crumbs left for the national middle-classes. Socialism emerged across C20th Europe as a reaction to Empire economics, yet capitalism encouraged by Empire endured.

Developing merchant/middle classes
As above, industrial developments encouraged a burgeoning mercantile class in Britain and in each colony. Has the legacy of that been a positive thing?

Education system
Again, the Victorian determination to 'educate the natives' espoused by Thomas Babington Macaulay leaves an nasty taste in the mouth. Could you argue that the (admittedly prescribed) scientific method taught across the British Empire has left a culture of learning in numerous countries and some venerable universities and colleges?

Language
The English language was forced upon colonies. I maintain that without it none of the above would have been possible nor endured.

This is nothing more than a summary - yet once again - of the British point of view on their empire. I suggest you read other view points. You have a horrendous task ahead of you though because you are very far into the fairy tale of spreading good stuff.

Some of the issues have been covered elsewhere on these threads - like the slavery fallacy.

Hookey

MarchDub wrote: »

This is nothing more than a summary - yet once again - of the British point of view on their empire. I suggest you read other view points. You have a horrendous task ahead of you though because you are very far into the fairy tale of spreading good stuff.

Some of the issues have been covered elsewhere on these threads - like the slavery fallacy.

And that's not an answer either. More of a "la, la, la, I'm not listening".

As it happens, all of those categories were replicated in other empires, with two (two and a half) glaring exceptions; Trade structure and a middle class (the third is transport but with caveats). No other European empires left behind economic infrastructure and middle classes that could leverage those post-colonial states. The fact that many of those benefits were subsequently pissed away (e.g. Ugandan East Asians, The Indian Civil Service model in Pakistan etc.) is hardly the fault of the British. The third is transport. Not only did the British leave behind better infrastructure within their own Empire, they did it in other people's too (most of South Americas' railways were built, and operated, by the British. Once they were gone, the rail networks collapsed, which is why you now have to get buses everywhere). In fact, Britain was actually a net inward investor into India for a good 30-40 years before independence; the British proppoed India up economically in the latter part of the Raj, not the other way around.

MarchDub

Hookey wrote: »

And that's not an answer either. More of a "la, la, la, I'm not listening".

You got that right. Heard it all so many times before - I always think the "better transport" argument is a real hoot, I have to admit. You got massacred? well, never mind, look at the great rail system.

Hookey

MarchDub wrote: »

You got that right. Heard it all so many times before - I always think the "better transport" argument is a real hoot, I have to admit. You got massacred? well, never mind, look at the great rail system.

Google "economic geography", "Paul Krugman", and "Nobel prize". Then you might see that leaving behind a shiny railway system isn't as trivial as you might think.