The British Empire Thread

MarchDub · 24-12-2008 1:46pm

Hookey wrote: »

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.

I wasn't saying it was trivial - I was referring to the cost. Paid for in blood.

And incidentally, it was no altruistic enterprise by any means, rail systems were built originally to facilitate the colonialism process of the various countries where land was grabbed and handed over to the "whitemen". What was left behind was just that - they couldn't take it with them when they were booted out.

McArmalite · 27-12-2008 12:55pm

Hookey wrote: »

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.

I'll give you your credit on stating that to an Irishman britian was the worst empire of all, to a Ukrainian, Bolivian etc they would have a different answer of course. However you them go on a long convoluted theory that because the british middle classes may have had some influence on the british state during it's ' golden era' as the reason today's british public are misled as to the true nature of the british empire. The main reason the british public go on with the conceited lies regarding the history of britian is not because of the convoluted theory that the middle class had an influence on it that the other middle classes had not in other Empires, Spain, France, whatever but because the myths of empire - the benign, benevolent civilizer and great british pluck etc, etc are still been perpetrated and the truth still ignored. Even with your above post that's evident to be seen.............

" 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. "

but then go on to state

" 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. " So folks now you have it, britain not really that bad and they shouldn't be too hard on themselves :rolleyes:

The Spanish and French also used the cloak of religious conversion as an excuse for their similar campaigns of slavery and exploitation and also " paid for the missionaries in Africa,". Indeed the barbarity of the Conquistadors often under the instruction of watching Catholic clergy should be one of the most obvious glaring examples of ' Christian civilizations ' methods. Don't know what excuse the Russians used, but I'll give odds on that the Ottoman empire did much of their conquering under the flag of spreading Islam.

McArmalite · 27-12-2008 1:30pm

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.

i hope this doesn't sound sarcastic, but it's a bit like saying slavery gave the African slaves a free trip to the Caribbean and America. As MarchDub states

MarchDub wrote: »

I wasn't saying it was trivial - I was referring to the cost. Paid for in blood.

And incidentally, it was no altruistic enterprise by any means, rail systems were built originally to facilitate the colonialism process of the various countries where land was grabbed and handed over to the "whitemen". What was left behind was just that - they couldn't take it with them when they were booted out.

Any apparent good that from the ruling class of britain came about because of unavoidable and unforeseen circumstances. Self-serving economic and military expediency forced changes on them, the welfare of its victims was their last thing they were concerned with. No deliberate good came from the british empire, as no good was ever intended.

Brigantes · 27-12-2008 5:13pm

McArmalite wrote: »

No deliberate good came from the british empire, as no good was ever intended.

It's laughably easy to denigrate the British Empire, as it's easy to denigrate Empire per se. I'd prefer to take the rocky road...

A question for you McArmalite - would you say that the motives of British missionaries, teachers and doctors across the Empire, in setting up churches, schools and hospitals, was one of evil? How so?

Across GB, at the time, there were voluntary movements set up to improve the fortunes of the working classes and poor. Such cultural movements inspired towns like Bournville and Saltaire, the promotion of temporance societies and the Athletic Associations. Could you argue that without the British Empire we wouldn't have free public libraries, the pioneer movement and the GAA? If Ireland hadn't been conquered, would such societies emerged?

Brigantes · 27-12-2008 5:26pm

MarchDub wrote: »

What was left behind was just that - they couldn't take it with them when they were booted out.

Didn't the French do just that in Africa with their telegraph lines?

MarchDub · 28-12-2008 2:05pm

Brigantes wrote: »

It's laughably easy to denigrate the British Empire,

Yes, that is point I am making.., there were so many egregious atrocities made by the British during the acquiring and expansion of empire and the violence of the military methods used to hang onto it that it IS easy to pick from a plethora of barbarism.

Brigantes wrote: »

.
Across GB, at the time, there were voluntary movements set up to improve the fortunes of the working classes and poor. Such cultural movements inspired towns like Bournville and Saltaire, the promotion of temporance societies and the Athletic Associations. Could you argue that without the British Empire we wouldn't have free public libraries, the pioneer movement and the GAA? If Ireland hadn't been conquered, would such societies emerged?

You obviously don't know the history of Ireland well - especially that of Ireland prior to the Anglo-Norman invasion. Cultural movements in Ireland in the late nineteenth century were formed to RESTORE the Irish culture - language, literature, even sport that had been lost, frequently under legal weight during the British presence.

The Irish law system was probably the greatest loss of all but it lived on in the characteristics and aspirations of the people. It was a much more levelling system than the English Common law system that replaced it which saw people in a hierarchical system of class. Property for example, was not the privileged prerogative of a sole landed class in the Irish system.

So saying that the British Empire gave rise to working class rights is also in your words "laughable" - because it was the British Empire which took these rights away from the "boaire" or ordinary Irish farmers. Irish women also lost property rights and status under Common English law which they had to win back.

Brigantes · 28-12-2008 8:49pm

MarchDub wrote: »

Yes, that is point I am making.., there were so many egregious atrocities made by the British during the acquiring and expansion of empire and the violence of the military methods used to hang onto it that it IS easy to pick from a plethora of barbarism.

You miss my point. Anyone interested in History or Politics would appreciate the challenge in finding something positive; Empire wasn't Holocaust, even though it is risibly easy to label it such.

MarchDub wrote: »

Cultural movements in Ireland in the late nineteenth century were formed to RESTORE the Irish culture - language, literature, even sport that had been lost, frequently under legal weight during the British presence.

I understand this. My point is that Ireland used Victorian British cultural forms to express Irish identity. E.g. The GAA has his history in English Athletic Associations, despite all the myth-making and genuflecting we all participate in.

MarchDub wrote: »

So saying that the British Empire gave rise to working class rights is also in your words "laughable" - because it was the British Empire which took these rights away from the "boaire" or ordinary Irish farmers. Irish women also lost property rights and status under Common English law which they had to win back.

You musn't have a good understanding of political Ideology. Socialism & Nationalism didn't arise solely in Ireland during this period. They emerged across Europe as a result of Empire economics, not solely in Ireland because of the British Empire, which you seem to think.

metrovelvet · 29-12-2008 4:17am

McArmalite wrote: »

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 ??

Oh, is that what they were doing when they joined during WWII?

McArmalite wrote: »

Irish women also lost property rights and status under Common English law which they had to win back.

Oh and Irish women had so much more rights under the new regime, you know where they werent allowed to work, werent allowed to use birth control, sent to the magdalene laundries, etc.

Brigantes wrote:

Such cultural movements inspired towns like Bournville and Saltaire, the promotion of temporance societies and the Athletic Associations. Could you argue that without the British Empire we wouldn't have free public libraries, the pioneer movement and the GAA? If Ireland hadn't been conquered, would such societies emerged?

It seems it probably wouldnt have a lot of its identities and socities, which to me look reactive. I doubt religion either wouldnt have such a stronghold on identity either if it werent replacing the one that left or replaced the oppressor with its own oppressions by its own people. Also it seems to me that Ireland adopted a lot of British forms and stuck Irish names on it, but didnt really reform that much.

And come on... they really should put back the western rail corridor. Why is that not being used, out of interest? Is it too English or something?

29-12-2008 11:29am

For Irish women..
Which was worst!

The british empire or the Catholic church!

Hookey · 29-12-2008 12:03pm

MarchDub wrote: »

Irish women also lost property rights and status under Common English law which they had to win back.

I was nodding along until this point. The status of Irish women was unequivocally worse under the post-independence Theocracy than it would have been had Ireland remained part of the UK. Having a vote and property rights is rather less important than having control of your own body.

I'm also a bit dubious about the qualities of "Irish Law" prior to the Anglo-Normans. Was Brehon Law really any kind of genuine legal code above the feudal norms prevalent everywhere else in Europe? It seemed to be a better civil code than others had, but from what I've read that's all it was. "Criminal" law was just as arbitrary as most other places. As far as I was aware, the only genuine national legal code and democracy at the time was in Iceland (and the Faroes and Isle of Man if you want to be picky).

MarchDub · 29-12-2008 12:39pm

Hookey wrote: »

I was nodding along until this point. The status of Irish women was unequivocally worse under the post-independence Theocracy than it would have been had Ireland remained part of the UK. Having a vote and property rights is rather less important than having control of your own body.

I'm also a bit dubious about the qualities of "Irish Law" prior to the Anglo-Normans. Was Brehon Law really any kind of genuine legal code above the feudal norms prevalent everywhere else in Europe? It seemed to be a better civil code than others had, but from what I've read that's all it was. "Criminal" law was just as arbitrary as most other places. As far as I was aware, the only genuine national legal code and democracy at the time was in Iceland (and the Faroes and Isle of Man if you want to be picky).

Actually I was referring specifically to property rights prior to the establishment of English Common law - under Brehon law women, and more pointedly married women - had property rights which were specifically taken away under Common English law. When English Common Law was finally established in the early 1600s - and Brehon Law banned successfully- the decree specifically mentioned the property rights of married woman under Brehon Law and stated that under English Common Law all property must be held in the husband's name only.

As for the feudal system - Brehon law did not support this. This was one of the serious stresses between the two societies from the initial invasion. When Hugh O'Neill claimed his succession as "The O'Neill" under Brehon Law - by election- it brought on the Nine Years' War [Elizabeth I sent in a large army to oust O'Neill] because under English law succession was by primogeniture - and local assemblies were banned from choosing leaders by election as they did under Brehon Law.

Erin Go Brath · 04-01-2009 7:58pm

Zebra3 wrote: »

What's some people's problem with the people of Ireland voting for independence as a proud to be Irish moment?

Ignore them, its a good choice. Some people probably wish the whole country was still under Brit rule.

For me the ambush at kilmichael in 1920 is my retrospective proud to be Irish moment (pre-empting more you've got the hang of the internet well for a centenerian jibes :P).

The ambush came just a week after Bloody Sunday in Croke Park and sent a message to occupying forces that if they indiscriminately slaughter Irish people then be prepared for the consequences of such actions. A whole Auxiliary elite unit was wiped out that day. Excellent work from one of the best ever units of the IRA. Irelands independence would probably never have been achieved if it wasnt for the effort of those boys.

McArmalite · 06-01-2009 4:27pm

Svenolsen wrote: »

I'd say those guys in the picture are from Ireland all right !!!!!!

They are probably from Ireland alright, the northeast of the country I'm quite sure.Their ancestors came over from the north of England and the lowlands of Scotland after a campaign of ethnic cleansing both in Ireland and Scotland and have maintained their allegiance to britain down the years. These british subjects have insulted, discriminated, attacked and murdered with the full support of the british state Irish citizens down the centuries, to describe them as Irish and not british is like describing a pro apartheid supporter as an anti rascist.

Fratton Fred · 06-01-2009 4:31pm

McArmalite wrote: »

They are probably from Ireland alright, the northeast of the country I'm quite sure.Their ancestors came over from the north of England and the lowlands of Scotland after a campaign of ethnic cleansing both in Ireland and Scotland and have maintained their allegiance to britain down the years. These british subjects have insulted, discriminated, attacked and murdered with the full support of the british state Irish citizens down the centuries, to describe them as Irish and not british is like describing a pro apartheid supporter as an anti rascist.

so they are as Irish as General Philip Sheridan was American then.

partyguinness · 06-01-2009 4:40pm

Centauro wrote: »

Indeed, this tiny Island has a lot to be proud of.

1. Andrew Jackson. 7th President. 1829 1837. Co. Antrim.

2. James Knox Polk. 11th President. 1845 1849. Co. Londonderry.

3. James Buchanan. 15th President. 1857 1861. Co. Tyrone.

4. Andrew Johnson. 17th President. 1865 1869. Co. Antrim.

5. Ulysses S. Grant. 18th President. 1869 1877. Co. Tyrone.

6. Chester A. Arthur. 21st President. 1881 1885. Co. Antrim.

7. Stephen Grover Cleveland. 22nd & 24th President. 1885 1889,1893 1897.

8. Benjamin Harrison. 23rd 1889 1893. Co. Antrim.

9. William McKinley. 25th 1897 1901. Co. Antrim.

10. Theodore Roosevelt. 26th 1901 1904. Co. Antrim.

11. Thomas Woodrow Wilson. 28th 1913 1921. Co. Tyrone.

Where is County Londonderry? I know of County Derry alright.

I don't see how cheering on a foreign queens subjects/pawns/cannon fodder in an army that has taken part in an illegal invasion of another sovereign country as somethinig to be proud of or what exactly it has to do with being Irish.

But each to their own

Svenolsen · 06-01-2009 4:41pm

McArmalite wrote: »

To describe them as Irish and not british is like describing a pro apartheid supporter as an anti rascist.

So the people of North East Ireland are British then.
.

McArmalite · 06-01-2009 4:46pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so they are as Irish as General Philip Sheridan was American then.

Sheridan, PHILIP HENRY, military officer; born in Albany, N. Y., March 6, 1831; graduated at West Point in 1853. An Irish American is American first, Irish second. Maybe American Irish would be a better way to describe them.

McArmalite · 06-01-2009 4:50pm

Svenolsen wrote: »

So the people of North East Ireland are British then.
.

No, ofcourse not the nationalists, as stated the unionist ones whose " ancestors came over from the north of England and the lowlands of Scotland after a campaign of ethnic cleansing both in Ireland and Scotland and have maintained their allegiance to britain down the years. These british subjects have insulted, discriminated, attacked and murdered with the full support of the british state Irish citizens down the centuries, to describe them as Irish and not british is like describing a pro apartheid supporter as an anti rascist. "

Say, if you were to get a picture of fellas from the Sudetenland in todays Czech Republic posing with a Nazi flag - do you think the Czechs would call them German or Czech ? They'd rightly resent the b@stards, but in the Ireland Republic what does offical Ireland say - accept their diversity, cherish all traditions blah, blah, blah. The Czechs - or any other country for that matter have more respect for themselves than the Yes Men, Gombeens and West Brits that run this one.

todolist · 07-01-2009 4:34pm

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Your opinion, of course, but by mine: Like hell it is. He wasn't Irish. His father wasn't Irish. They had nothing to do with Ireland and did nothing for it.
The myths about JFK and his legendary status on this island are simply hilarious.

You're can't be serious.President Kennedy had Irish decent.That's where he came from and he was proud to acknowledge that.I don't think you understand how important is was for an isolated dreary country back in 1963 to have an Irish American President come here and acknowledge how important Ireland was to him and his family.It gave this nation a big boost to see someone from our tribe reach the pinnicale of American politics.Maybe Obama will do the same for Africans.

Fratton Fred · 07-01-2009 5:00pm

todolist wrote: »

You're can't be serious.President Kennedy had Irish decent.That's where he came from and he was proud to acknowledge that.I don't think you understand how important is was for an isolated dreary country back in 1963 to have an Irish American President come here and acknowledge how important Ireland was to him and his family.It gave this nation a big boost to see someone from our tribe reach the pinnicale of American politics.Maybe Obama will do the same for Africans.

it won him a lot of votes too.

MarchDub · 08-01-2009 12:08pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it won him a lot of votes too.

But his Catholicism cost him a lot of votes too - in 1960 the US was still an anti-Catholic country. Kennedy had to go to the Protestant leaders in a very public meeting and assure them that his Catholicism would not be a factor for him in how he conducted his presidency. Not all were convinced and many voters admitted in polls that they would not vote for a Catholic.

And before anyone thinks this archaic - I recently watched an interview with Cherie Blair in which he said that the UK was "probably" now ready for a Catholic PM. Anti-Catholicism is still a factor in many "advanced" Protestant countries.

Fratton Fred · 08-01-2009 1:57pm

MarchDub wrote: »

And before anyone thinks this archaic - I recently watched an interview with Cherie Blair in which he said that the UK was "probably" now ready for a Catholic PM. Anti-Catholicism is still a factor in many "advanced" Protestant countries.

Link?

Hookey · 08-01-2009 2:09pm

MarchDub wrote: »

And before anyone thinks this archaic - I recently watched an interview with Cherie Blair in which he said that the UK was "probably" now ready for a Catholic PM. Anti-Catholicism is still a factor in many "advanced" Protestant countries.

Most English people I know would rather you didn't talk about your religion at all and find questions of religion a bit embarrassing. Unless you want to get your kid into a catholic school (usually much better than other schools), then they're happy to be as religious as you like until junior has his foot in the door. As a friend said to me, "Oh well, I can just easily be a catholic atheist as a protestant one".

partyguinness · 08-01-2009 2:12pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Link?

It is illegal for a Catholic to be head of the monarchy in the UK (and I know the reasons before you start) for example...now if that was in Iraq we would all be high and mighty about religious intolerance..blah blah

Fratton Fred · 08-01-2009 2:17pm

Religion in the UK is not worn like a badge as it is in Ireland. For someone in Ireland to accuse the UK of being archaic over religion is pretty rich tbh.

As Darah O'Briain said "I’m staunchly atheist, I simply don’t believe in God. But I’m still Catholic, of course. Catholicism has a much broader reach than just the religion. I’m ethnically Catholic, it’s the box you have to tick on the census form: ‘Don’t believe in God, but I do still hate Rangers.’"

partyguinness · 08-01-2009 2:19pm

getz wrote: »

thats not that impressive irelands backing of adolf hitler during the war led to a russian veto for ireland joining the united nations

When exactly did Ireland back Hitler? Proof, examples would be nice...

That is utter nonsense and has no basis in fact. Ireland unofficially supported the Allies and assisted where possible during WWII while giving the air of complete neutrality.

getz · 08-01-2009 2:23pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Link?

as a young lad i was once told that jewish doctors were not allowed to practice in the republic, it may only be a rumour i havent found any evidence to the fact

Fratton Fred · 08-01-2009 2:32pm

partyguinness wrote: »

It is illegal for a Catholic to be head of the monarchy in the UK (and I know the reasons before you start) for example...now if that was in Iraq we would all be high and mighty about religious intolerance..blah blah

technically, that is right, although it hasn't been challenegd for a very long time. As i have said before, when it needs to be addressed it will be. It is a hereditary role, so a major change is unlikely, although i have a feeling Charlies may do something about it.

Regardless, despite what Cherie Blair's ego may have been telling her, she was a million miles away from getting that post anyway, regardless of her religion

partyguinness · 08-01-2009 2:38pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

technically, that is right, although it hasn't been challenegd for a very long time. As i have said before, when it needs to be addressed it will be. It is a hereditary role, so a major change is unlikely, although i have a feeling Charlies may do something about it.

Regardless, despite what Cherie Blair's ego may have been telling her, she was a million miles away from getting that post anyway, regardless of her religion

TBH as an agnostic myself, I would more concerned about my prime minister having such strong religious views as I do not believe there should be any place for religion in government.

MarchDub · 08-01-2009 2:52pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Link?

The Cherie Blair interview was on EWTN network in the US. It aired in Oct 08 - at least that is when I saw it.

Anecdotally I can say that it surprised a lot of American Catholics to hear this - they had no feel for residual anti-Catholic feeling in the UK.

The British Empire Thread

Comments