David Cameron: Britain caused many of the world's problems

Predator_

The Prime Minister appeared to distance himself from the imperial past when he suggested that Britain was to blame for decades of tension and several wars over the disputed territory, as well as other global conflicts.
His remarks came on a visit to Pakistan, when he was asked how Britain could help to end the row over Kashmir.
He insisted that it was not his place to intervene in the dispute, s More..aying: “I don’t want to try to insert Britain in some leading role where, as with so many of the world’s problems, we are responsible for the issue in the first place.”
His remarks about Kashmir were greeted warmly by the audience of Pakistani students and academics, but drew accusations from historians that the Prime Minister was wrongly apologising for Britain’s past.
Daisy Cooper, the director of the Commonwealth Policy Studies Unit, said: “This is typical of the UK’s schizophrenic relationship with former colonies where it is both proud and embarrassed about its past. The Coalition has said that it has big ambitions for a modern Commonwealth and the UK should stop being embarrassed about its colonial past and they should work with other countries to help improve their human rights.”


Even the leader of the UK admits their past was wrong and evil.

Pat D. Almighty

If only HRH would say something similar...

Fratton Fred

Predator_ wrote: »

The Prime Minister appeared to distance himself from the imperial past when he suggested that Britain was to blame for decades of tension and several wars over the disputed territory, as well as other global conflicts.
His remarks came on a visit to Pakistan, when he was asked how Britain could help to end the row over Kashmir.
He insisted that it was not his place to intervene in the dispute, s More..aying: “I don’t want to try to insert Britain in some leading role where, as with so many of the world’s problems, we are responsible for the issue in the first place.”
His remarks about Kashmir were greeted warmly by the audience of Pakistani students and academics, but drew accusations from historians that the Prime Minister was wrongly apologising for Britain’s past.
Daisy Cooper, the director of the Commonwealth Policy Studies Unit, said: “This is typical of the UK’s schizophrenic relationship with former colonies where it is both proud and embarrassed about its past. The Coalition has said that it has big ambitions for a modern Commonwealth and the UK should stop being embarrassed about its colonial past and they should work with other countries to help improve their human rights.”


Even the leader of the UK admits their past was wrong and evil.

He said nothing like that, he said Britain caused a lot of problems. All imperialism has caused problems and Britain having one of the largest empires would therefore be more culpable.

There is a degree of pandering to the audience as well here. In Pakistan they like to blame all their problems on partition forced upon them by the nasty Brits, when in reality they were very much a party to it.

Sound familiar?

petroltimer

Pat D. Almighty wrote: »

If only HRH would say something similar...

Just wondering if you think HRH as you say should apologize because she holds the office of Queen or because she is head of a family who did very well out of empire building?

Laminations

Predator_ wrote: »

Even the leader of the UK admits their past was wrong and evil.

?
He 'admitted' that elements of their foreign policy had been terribly wrong.
When Brits apologise you ridicule them, and when they don't, you ridicule them

later12

Seems like a perfectly reasonably statement. When Cameron was in opposition I didn't find him at all impressive, but he has really grown into a sometimes remarkably upfront and pragmatic PM - and a Conservative, at that.

A bit off topic, but:

Predator_ wrote: »

Daisy Cooper, the director of the Commonwealth Policy Studies Unit, said: “This is typical of the UK’s schizophrenic relationship with former colonies where it is both proud and embarrassed about its past.

Oh Daisy, you daft bint.

When will it cease to be acceptable to misuse the term schizophrenic in popular parlance, as a catch all word to describe apparently split personalities or conflicting internal opinions?

LondonIrish90

meh, he's as tory as they come. I have no doubts at all that he couldn't care less about the troubles caused by the British Empire. He's simply trying to get the Pakistanis onside in what will be a long and arduous intelligence war.

Add to that, the British Empire (for all you "fuk de Brit scum" brigade members) was fairly mild compared to most European empires. There are many other nations you will want to point the finger at before Britain.

ednwireland

how about apologising for britains present as well (or at least the recent past - iraq war afghanistan anyone)

as for cameron he's a tory and no different to thatcher (except for not having a majority)

Fratton Fred

ednwireland wrote: »

how about apologising for britains present as well (or at least the recent past - iraq war afghanistan anyone)

as for cameron he's a tory and no different to thatcher (except for not having a majority)

I guess Britain will apologise for Afghanistan at the same time as Ireland.

Why do people "conveniently" forget the Irish army are involved as well.

Denerick

Predator_ wrote: »

Even the leader of the UK admits their past was wrong and evil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words

Weasel words is an informal term[1] for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. For example, an advertisement may use a weasel phrase such as "up to 50% off on all products"; this is misleading because the audience is invited to imagine many items reduced by the proclaimed 50%, but the words taken literally mean only that no discount will exceed 50%, and in practice the vendor is free to not reduce any prices and still remain faithful to the wording of the advertisement.

danbohan

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

meh, he's as tory as they come. I have no doubts at all that he couldn't care less about the troubles caused by the British Empire. He's simply trying to get the Pakistanis onside in what will be a long and arduous intelligence war.

Add to that, the British Empire (for all you "fuk de Brit scum" brigade members) was fairly mild compared to most European empires. There are many other nations you will want to point the finger at before Britain.

what other empires invaded ireland ?. of course we should be grateful that only 2 million starved or emigrated in the famine it was down to the ''mild'' caring english

LondonIrish90

danbohan wrote: »

what other empires invaded ireland ?. of course we should be grateful that only 2 million starved or emigrated in the famine it was down to the ''mild'' caring english

From an Irish point of view, that is of course true.

From a holistic, factual viewpoint, calling Britain the most bloodthirsty and ruthless empire builders is simply wrong.

People should really specify which they are talking of when posting in threads regarding this topic.

petroltimer

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

From an Irish point of view, that is of course true.

From a holistic, factual viewpoint, calling Britain and most bloodthirsty and ruthless empire builders is simply wrong.

People should really specify which they are talking of when posting in threads regarding this topic.

A lot of Irish people also tend to forget that although maybe reluctantly, Ireland was part of the UK for 122 years and during this time many Irish made a great contribution to empire building.

KeithAFC

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I guess Britain will apologise for Afghanistan at the same time as Ireland.

Why do people "conveniently" forget the Irish army are involved as well.

The Irish volunteers are doing the UK proud. They deserve more respect.

PeterIanStaker

Imperialism has definitely caused problems.


Am I allowed say that without being labelled a terrorist?

Pat D. Almighty

petroltimer wrote: »

Just wondering if you think HRH as you say should apologize because she holds the office of Queen or because she is head of a family who did very well out of empire building?

Both

Predator_

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Imperialism has definitely caused problems.


Am I allowed say that without being labelled a terrorist?

Labelled by who? Those who support criminal Imperialism?
Who cares what they think.

Cú Giobach

KeithAFC wrote: »

The Irish volunteers are doing the UK proud. They deserve more respect.

Why Kieth do you constantly make comments like this for no reason except to get a "rise" out of people and then criticise elements like the republican dissidents who are the result of the division propagated and reinforced by such attitudes and comments?

slimjimmc

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I guess Britain will apologise for Afghanistan at the same time as Ireland.

Why do people "conveniently" forget the Irish army are involved as well.

Why do people conveniently forget that Britain was one of the main aggressors in the initial invasion on 7th Oct 2001, and that Ireland's involvement, as always, is under an UN Resolution which formed the ISAW on 1st Dec 2001 (months after the invasion began).

So why do these same people conveniently 'forget' that Ireland wasn't party to starting the mess in the first place, perhaps this forgetfulness help's give a false perception.


BTW, Ireland's 7 (yes seven) troops didn't come onto the scene until 24th July 2003, more than 21 months after the invasion. They're based in Kabul and their role is a support one, e.g. train other troops in ordinance disposal. Obviously it's not the same 7 all the time, they get rotated but there's only 7 there at any one time.

danbohan

slimjimmc wrote: »

Why do people conveniently forget that Britain was one of the main aggressors in the initial invasion on 7th Oct 2001, and that Ireland's involvement, as always, is under an UN Resolution which formed the ISAW on 1st Dec 2001 (months after the invasion began).

So why do these same people conveniently 'forget' that Ireland wasn't party to starting the mess in the first place, perhaps this forgetfulness help's give a false perception.


BTW, Ireland's 7 (yes seven) troops didn't come onto the scene until 24th July 2003, more than 21 months after the invasion. They're based in Kabul and their role is a support one, e.g. train other troops in ordinance disposal. Obviously it's not the same 7 all the time, they get rotated but there's only 7 there at any one time.

guilt is a funny thing , the first reaction of the guilty individual or people is to try and spread the blame for their actions to others however innocent they are .
this may be as close as freddie will ever come to admitting that his beloved army/country could be in the wrong .

LondonIrish90

danbohan wrote: »

guilt is a funny thing , the first reaction of the guilty individual or people is to try and spread the blame for their actions to others however innocent they are .
this may be as close as freddie will ever come to admitting that his beloved army/country could be in the wrong .

In no way is it a case of spreading the blame. I know of people who have served in helman province, and i am extremely proud of what they have achieved.

I am also extremely supportive of the British government's decision to take the fight to the taliban in Afghanistan.

In short - legal war, I completely agree and I'm completely supportive.

However, that doesnt take away from the fact that Ireland has sent servicemen there. Not many at all, but enough to show the irish are supportive of, and complicit in this conflict. Would be nice to see the famous Army Ranger Wing in action in such a hostile theatre of war (instead of continuing to take part in "war games") - even the Estonians have sent significant contributions!

If Britain is, in your eyes, guilty of anything in Afghanistan, then Ireland is just as much to blame as it has shown support to the effort by sending its own men.

KeithAFC

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Why Kieth do you constantly make comments like this for no reason except to get a "rise" out of people and then criticise elements like the republican dissidents who are the result of the division propagated and reinforced by such attitudes and comments?

I think they deserve more respect. Whats wrong with that?

Cú Giobach

KeithAFC wrote: »

I think they deserve more respect. Whats wrong with that?

Whether or not you are actually telling the truth there is irrelevant because that was not the reason for your post. As the cliché says "a leopard can't change its spots".

Batsy

Predator_ wrote: »

Even the leader of the UK admits their past was wrong and evil.

Only because Cameron's an idiot who doesn't seem to realise that it's not the job of the British Prime Minister to go around the world putting Britain down.

What is even worse when he does that is that what he says isn't even accurate.

Last year, on a trip to the United States, he made a speech (to the US Parliament, I think) in which he said that Britain was the "junior partner" to the US during WWII in 1940. There was uproar in Britain where many pointed out that America wasn't even in the war in 1940 and, even when it did enter at the end of 1941, Britain had ten times as many troops in the field as the US did.

Batsy

ednwireland wrote: »

how about apologising for britains present as well (or at least the recent past - iraq war afghanistan anyone)

as for cameron he's a tory and no different to thatcher (except for not having a majority)

Isn't Ireland in Afghanistan as well?

Shea O'Meara

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

Add to that, the British Empire (for all you "fuk de Brit scum" brigade members) was fairly mild compared to most European empires. There are many other nations you will want to point the finger at before Britain.

The thread is on Cameron and the British Empire. Stating that you believe others were/are worse is not really relevant. Also using, "(for all you "fuk de Brit scum" brigade members)" presupposes any anti British Empire sentiment to be no more than blinkered hatred. I think you'll find, as alluded to by the current British Prime Minister, people have good reason to dislike the British Empire.
I find it darkly amusing to hear the British talk of bringing democracy and freedom to people with their record both past and current. Even Cameron, to some extent it seems, isn't fooling himself into thinking the British are simply acting on some form of beneficence.

RandomName2

Predator_ wrote: »

Even the leader of the UK admits their past was wrong and evil.

When did the UK create a poorly defined ethnic and sectarian boundary in its colony of India?

If I remember correctly there was no war between muslims and hindi in India whilst it was a part of the British Empire.

I suspect that Cameron was merely attempting to curry diplomatic favour with the Pakistani establishment (in order to placate them in relation to the bombing of Pakistan by NATO forces and the greater diplomatic ties the West are making with India.)

Yawn. :pac:

RandomName2

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

In no way is it a case of spreading the blame. I know of people who have served in helman province, and i am extremely proud of what they have achieved.

I am also extremely supportive of the British government's decision to take the fight to the taliban in Afghanistan.

In short - legal war, I completely agree and I'm completely supportive.

However, that doesnt take away from the fact that Ireland has sent servicemen there. Not many at all, but enough to show the irish are supportive of, and complicit in this conflict. Would be nice to see the famous Army Ranger Wing in action in such a hostile theatre of war (instead of continuing to take part in "war games") - even the Estonians have sent significant contributions!

If Britain is, in your eyes, guilty of anything in Afghanistan, then Ireland is just as much to blame as it has shown support to the effort by sending its own men.

They're just putting out more flags.

A useful gesture in somewhere like the First Gulf War (the West could point to the fact that there were many soldiers from Muslim countries in the UN offensive... they just didn't do anything as they were totally inadequate compared to the US, French and British forces.)

BUT WHY have a pathetic Irish force in Afghanistan? Ireland goes in for 'oh we're the most pacifistic country in the world' schtick so why go with the pretence of 'oh we're helping out the allies in Afghanistan.

Neither use nor ornament - a symbolic mess imo. Send a decent force or practice what you preach.

Nodin

RandomName2 wrote: »

When did the UK create a poorly defined ethnic and sectarian boundary in its colony of India?

If I remember correctly there was no war between muslims and hindi in India whilst it was a part of the British Empire.

...............

I'd suggest Mr Cameron has read more of the history of India than some of his detractors on the issue....

It is therefore not surprising that they had been trying to foment communal unrest between the two communities all through the early part of the 19th century. For instance, as early as 1821, a British officer under the assumed name of "Carnaticus" wrote in the Asiatic Review that : "Divide et impera should be the motto of our Indian administration, whether political, civil or military." The fright of 1857 made the British even more purposeful in how they used communal propaganda.


One of the insidious practices initiated by the British was to encourage Quranic fundamentalism in the guise of "Islamic Reform" which in practise meant erasing the sufi ethos and forcing Muslim ocnverts to give up their long held affection for earlier tribal or Hindu or other Indic beliefs and practises. In "purifying" the Indian Muslim, British-sponsored clerics (such as Wahhabis) from the Arabian peninsula and other Quranic fanatics helped lay the foundation of sectarian organizations such as the Muslim League in East Bengal who sought to destroy the camraderie that had previously existed between Hindus and Sufi (or moderate) Muslims.


At the same time, they encouraged rumor-mongering, incited riots and deliberately favored one community over another.
"We have maintained our power in India by playing-off one part against the other," the Secretary of State for India reminded Viceroy, Lord Elgin (1862-63), "and we must continue to do so. Do all you can, therefore, to prevent all having a common feeling."

Lord Curzon (Governor General of India 1895-99 and Viceroy 1899-1904, d.1925) was told by the Secretary of State for India, George Francis Hamilton, that they 'should so plan the educational text books that the differences between community and community are further strengthened'.

http://india_resource.tripod.com/hist-2nation.html
etc etc

LondonIrish90

Predator_ wrote: »

How do people like you make your way to an Irish forum?

There are websites you can visit if you only want to see people agree with your opinions about Britain. I have no doubts you already do visit these hard core republican sites anyway. The thing that makes this forum such a good one is that people can post differing opinions and debate them in a civil manner (except you you and your ilk are involved, it seems).

Scofflaw

Predator_ wrote: »

How do people like you make your way to an Irish forum?

Entrance is open to all - the exit is open to those who act the eejit. Banned for a week for personalising the discussion and trolling.

moderately,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

Nodin wrote: »

etc etc

Etc. etc. ?

The British administration fostered sectarian Islamic nationalism in order to facilitate its possession of India?

It's possible I suppose - I'll look into it at some point and, if true, I'll chalk it up for an imperialistic darwin award.

Not that India wouldn't have split along sectarian lines anyway, and it would be silly to suggest otherwise. There's only the whole history of humanity to contradict the suggestion that large groups of people who identify themselves as being of fundamentally different creeds and cultures can work together within a single nation voluntarily.

Absolutist dictatorships prevent such sectarianism from causing splits as this would weaken the nation as a whole (although generally one sect/ creed/ culture will be favoured by the administration in order to gain its support) hence I am cautiously skeptical of the imperial ambitions of Britain actually attempting to foster such division.

Nodin

RandomName2 wrote: »

Etc. etc. ?

The British administration fostered sectarian Islamic nationalism in order to facilitate its possession of India?

It's possible I suppose - I'll look into it at some point and, if true, I'll chalk it up for an imperialistic darwin award.

Not that India wouldn't have split along sectarian lines anyway, and it would be silly to suggest otherwise. There's only the whole history of humanity to contradict the suggestion that large groups of people who identify themselves as being of fundamentally different creeds and cultures can work together within a single nation voluntarily.

Absolutist dictatorships prevent such sectarianism from causing splits as this would weaken the nation as a whole (although generally one sect/ creed/ culture will be favoured by the administration in order to gain its support) hence I am cautiously skeptical of the imperial ambitions of Britain actually attempting to foster such division.

In all honesty, the idea that I have to convince people that an empire would stoop to the policy of divide and conquer is beyond ridiculous......

Scofflaw

Nodin wrote: »

In all honesty, the idea that I have to convince people that an empire would stoop to the policy of divide and conquer is beyond ridiculous......

I think it's more a case of how far one goes with one's claims. The British undeniably preferred not to face a common opposition of Hindu and Muslim communities, and worked to ensure that they didn't make common cause against the British, but on the other hand it would be incorrect to say that they "fostered sectarian Islamic nationalism in order to facilitate its possession of India", which if one works back from the present may seem obvious.

The British were, in fact, acutely aware of the risks of fostering sectarian Islamic feeling, since the British Empire had a huge Islamic population - about 100 million all told, 70 million in India and 30 million outside it. They faced repeated attempts to stir up jihad against the Empire, as well as various religiously-inspired movements such as Mahdism in the Sudan. German attempts to stir up revolt against the Empire were almost invariably focused on using Islam.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fratton Fred

Interesting article.

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/irin/genocide.html

The author has been criticised for being anti muslim, but it gives another perspective.

petroltimer

Pat D. Almighty wrote: »

Both

both okay, so will you be out protesting when Obama visits? ask for him to apologize for slavery, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc

Or what if the pope makes a visit, a man head of an organisation which terrorized people across Europe for 1500 years and ran 3 crusades nearly caused the extinction of the native people of south america and all the damage they did to Ireland.

Her family may have been bad, but they are a long way down the list

The Brigadier

Pat D. Almighty wrote: »

If only HRH would say something similar...

I assume you mean HM?

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Interesting article.

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/irin/genocide.html

The author has been criticised for being anti muslim, but it gives another perspective.

He is essentially correct in his observations about there being a genocide by Pakistan in 1971, whatever about the specific numbers. It should be pointed out that these hindus would have been citizens of a majority muslim independent Bangladesh, however. His other historical musings are more problematic, given his association with the hindu nationalists.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

He is essentially correct in his observations about there being a genocide by Pakistan in 1971, whatever about the specific numbers. It should be pointed out that these hindus would have been citizens of a majority muslim independent Bangladesh, however. His other historical musings are more problematic, given his association with the hindu nationalists.

Maybe, but it doesn't take much to establish that there were significant friction between Muslims and Hindus prior to the arrival of the British.

Religious intolerance is cited as one of the reasons the Moghul empire fell into decline.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Maybe, but it doesn't take much to establish that there were significant friction between Muslims and Hindus prior to the arrival of the British.

Certainly in the initial period, with occassional flare ups later on, but that doesn't change the fact of whatever divisions that did exist being emphasised, exaggerated and played on where nessecary in order to ease British rule. Its a matter of historical record. This is how many Empires worked to control their populations.

One might wonder as to whether or not Pakistan would have split off without such outside intereference, but thats into the realms of alternative history.

Denerick

Nodin wrote: »

Certainly in the initial period, with occassional flare ups later on, but that doesn't change the fact of whatever divisions that did exist being emphasised, exaggerated and played on where nessecary in order to ease British rule. Its a matter of historical record. This is how many Empires worked to control their populations.

One might wonder as to whether or not Pakistan would have split off without such outside intereference, but thats into the realms of alternative history.

The India/Pakistan thing is a real mess. Gandhi wanted a united greater India but couldn't get Muslims and Hindu's to just 'get along'. I doubt very much whether these pre Imperial divisions in the subcontinent would not have materialised with or without British rule there.

Nodin

Denerick wrote: »

The India/Pakistan thing is a real mess. Gandhi wanted a united greater India but couldn't get Muslims and Hindu's to just 'get along'. I doubt very much whether these pre Imperial divisions in the subcontinent would not have materialised with or without British rule there.

....the truth of the matter is that India is composed of a number of historically seperate kingdoms and peoples, a few of whom still wish for seperation to one extent or another. Kashmir is perhaps the most notorious example, but there is at least 5 or more others.

As regards the specific issue of the divide between hindu and muslim, it is, again, a matter of record that this was played on used to control the population. One might debate how much this led to the split that followed etc - my sole point was (and is) that such tactics were used, were 'far from helpful' and that Camerons apology has a basis.

It's not behaviour unique to the British, and personally I thought the OP was merely a bit of simplistic Brit bashing, however I disliked the dismissal of camerons remarks and thus find myself dragged in........

cardwizzard

Have to say well done to Mr Cameron. None more so than in our own country.

Still fair play to him, onwards and upwards, never thought I would say that about a Tory PM.:)

Fratton Fred

cardwizzard wrote: »

Have to say well done to Mr Cameron. None more so than in our own country.

Still fair play to him, onwards and upwards, never thought I would say that about a Tory PM.:)

The problems in Ireland are pretty minor in comparison to be honest.

Cú Giobach

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The problems in Ireland are pretty minor in comparison to be honest.

Not for the people who had to live through them.

Fratton Fred

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Not for the people who had to live through them.

You can't compare individual suffering because losing a lived one is a purely personal experience, but Ireland has never seen the levels of brutality the Punjab saw post partition.

cardwizzard

Maybe in your mind Fred, but not in mine.

I'm not trying to turn this into a damm them Brits thread which I will probably get blammed for. So i'll bow out of this.

Fratton Fred

cardwizzard wrote: »

Maybe in your mind Fred, but not in mine.

I'm not trying to turn this into a damm them Brits thread which I will probably get blammed for. So i'll bow out of this.

There are parallels for sure. Post partition there was a huge migration of people, many of whom were driven from their homes, but in India, particularly the Punjab, it was ethnic cleansing Serbian style rather than unionist style.

Cú Giobach

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You can't compare individual suffering because losing a lived one is a purely personal experience, but Ireland has never seen the levels of brutality the Punjab saw post partition.

If by "level" you mean the sheer scope and number of people involved of course not, a quite self evident fact that would only be mentioned out of the blue for the sake of dismissing the "problems" the British caused here.

By "problems" I mean bloodshed, wholesale slaughter and destruction of society.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There are parallels for sure. Post partition there was a huge migration of people, many of whom were driven from their homes, but in India, particularly the Punjab, it was ethnic cleansing Serbian style rather than unionist style.

The problems here didn't begin in the 1920's, quite a lot of "Serbian style" ethnic cleansing went on before then.

Fratton Fred

Cú Giobach wrote: »

If by "level" you mean the sheer scope and number of people involved of course not, a quite self evident fact that would only be mentioned out of the blue for the sake of dismissing the "problems" the British caused here.

By "problems" I mean bloodshed, wholesale slaughter and destruction of society.

Yes, you are right.

No one in the world, ever, suffered as much as the Irish.

Better?

Cú Giobach

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, you are right.

No one in the world, ever, suffered as much as the Irish.

Better?

Show me where I said that?
Your usual style of comment when someone mentions the "problems" caused here.
At least Cameron has the maturity and self confidence to apologise (as for Bloody Sunday) and admit to the fact that his country caused quite a bit of shite around the world, unlike some of his countrymen.